Preserved Topic: Dinosaur Adventure Land! (or, how the Creationists explain the Dinosaurs)

Dinosaur Adventure Land

Just...wow.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

This hasn't got anything to do with this, has it?

Ummm...get Paid to surf?? No, I don't think so....I do se a quick "Jesus Saves" type URL, but then it gets re-directed...

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

Jesus Saves is a really good slayer tune.

First of all: that page takes entirely too long to load for it's content. Second of all it is strictly against my beliefs to mix creationism and evolution. I just don't think it's possible. I'd like to explain more but I have an oral surgeon appointment in about 45 minutes. Upon my return I will write more.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

(Edited by Sanzen on 05-12-2004 15:18)

WOW.....speachless...

where do they gte money to make such a bullshit?
--------------------
Hey Rameses, I once with a friend surfed through it and we tried reading about Dinosaurs. I rememebr it said that Dinos were vegitarians, (classic stuff)...we were like "nah no one can be that stupid" and tried emailing the guy. The replay came in the next couple of days "crarifying" all the bullshit.

Most of the replays were "it's true because it says so in the bible" or he would quote random verses from random chapters and books and try to put them together to form an "evidence"

He also said some crazy shit about Dinosours being on Ark...ohh man I could go on forever...but some people have to be kept away from technology...

for fucks sake those people think earth is 3000 years old..

quote:

---

those people think earth is 3000 years old

---

Those people do not think[i] the world is 3k old they believe it. Rather sad.

^my bad

Ok i'm back now. I have to go in for oral surgery next week

Anyways, I'm EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY tired of christians. In particular, the christians who claim that evolution and creationism can co-exist. It's ok if a christian wants to claim this, BUT: Science says NO. It's not a two-way relationship. Christians can believe in some kind of macro-evolution, but evolution says that god doesn't exist. This is how you know SOMETHING is wrong. I have christians who harrass me daily and try to convert me. This is just more of their bullshit, trying to run the world. It disgusts me.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

(Edited by Sanzen on 05-12-2004 17:53)

quote:

---

Christians can believe in some kind of macro-evolution, but evolution says that god doesn't exist.

---

care to elaborate? cause i disagree...

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

me too


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Science (evolution) says that there is no God. Anyone who says otherwise is demeaning it's value. That is the BASIS of science in itself; Without this basis, science is no longer science: it is DOGMA. They cannot intertwine, if they do it is neither here nor there: you've got some concoction that's not evolution and its not creationism, and you shouldn't call it either.

There is a pseudo-intellectual Christian faction that believes there is some sort of micro-evolution after God created the earth, or humans rather. Creationism means no evolution; evolution means no creationism. I'm tired of people mixing the two. It's ignorant. This is just a move by the christians so they don't have to admit they're wrong, or that they can't explain something. Evolution is soon going to turn into Christianity's loopholes scapegoat.

[edit] micro/macro... who cares[/edit]


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

(Edited by Sanzen on 05-12-2004 19:22)

Ohh fuck people..stop this childish bullshit!

cmon..just accept the fact dammit!

Evolution is Science! Has nothing to do with Buddha, Jesus, Moses, Allah, gods of any kind or any religion.

the purpose of science is to answear question "how" and "when", not "why" or explore some "truth" and "light:

"why" is left to religions, phylosphy etc. and whatever you chose to believe.

And I fucking wish all those creationists can get over it and accept that their religions is nothing more than religion...stop mixing this shit up and arguing over it.

Why do they even argues with scientists? whats the point? what do they have? Stories? againstphysical evidence? shiiiit....

Those creationists make Christianity look horrible.

Same thing goes to people who prefare science....science is just a science not a religion stop trying to argue with some asshole fanatics or say there is no "god" or magical being. Believe whatever the hell you want to believe...they want to be stupid fine let them believe earth is flat and T-rex was a vegitarian, and that all non christians are going to hell.

If someone is a fanatics you cannot change the way they think. Regardless of their faith. (I hope it can be done, but I doubt it)

IMO science would never have got involved in this shitty debates if those extremists would left them alone.

Besided the point, why people debate this crap? I mean all religions and faithes have their own story how shit happened. Why debate over it? It's clear it's nothing more than a religion/faith and its all left up to just that "faith"


It's like oil and water...do not mix it.....

thats the point i was trying to make. is that it shouldn't be mixed.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

quote:

---

Science (evolution) says that there is no God.

---

There are many different flavors of "evolution". From what I understand, Charles Darwin was trying to explain the origin of species in a way that left God completely out of the equation. But that does not mean that all that we've learned about evolutionary theory since his time hasn't brought forth different theories and possibilities.

You use the word ignorant to describe people who look for a middle ground between science and religion. How so? Speaking as an ignorant pseudo-intellectual Christian myself, I spend much of my time reviewing new information, ideas and data about my faith and the world in which I live. I always associated people who thought they have it all figured out and didn't need to learn anything new to be the ignorant ones.

You have a choice in this matter and God was the one who set it up that way. You can choose to open your eyes and observe the physical world He put you in and do your best to learn and live as best you can. Or you can hold on to narrow beliefs that are designed specifically to relieve you of thinking difficult thoughts. I fear that many of our bretheren do just this when they say there is no mixing between science and religion. Why do we so quickly forget that some to the greatest scientific minds of centuries gone by were religious people? Do the names Kepler, Galileo or Newton ring any bells? These men did not see a barrier between the two and nor should you.

It is a mistake to think you can keep "thinking" separate from "believing". God demands the best from our spirit as well as our mind and I think you do a serious disservice by announcing to the world that a good Xian is an ignorant Xian.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

It is non christian to admit that there is evolution. To admit that would be to admit that God is imperfect, because he made man in his likeness. There are not many flavors of evolution. There are many falacies that have been created in an attempt to merge evolution with another concept. This makes something that IS NOT EVOLUTION. Evolution means evolution and nothing else.

quote:

---

You have a choice in this matter and God was the one who set it up that way. You can choose to open your eyes and observe the physical world He put you in and do your best to learn and live as best you can.

---

This irritates the living fuck out of me. Dont tell me what god did or didn't do for me, stop trying to transpose your dogma on my beliefs. I'm not even gonna say shit about this entirely biased and stupid paragraph.

quote:

---

God demands the best from our spirit as well as our mind and I think you do a serious disservice by announcing to the world that a good Xian is an ignorant Xian.

---

I announce that a Good Xian is a Xian who keeps his Xianity to his Xing self.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

(Edited by Sanzen on 05-12-2004 20:02)

quote:

---

This makes something that IS NOT EVOLUTION.

---

Like it or not, not all adherents to the theory of evolution say that it must exclude the existence of God. There are different flavors of the theory. I'm not telling you what to do, I'm just think holding onto such a narrow definition serves no purpose other than relieving you of dealing with the real issue. The real issue is how do you explain to nonXians how so much physical data looks like the world is ancient while you maintain it is only a few thousand years old; among other things.

When I say I believe the theory of evolution, I mean that I am an active participant in the scientific method. We have an abundance of physical data concerning species that used to roam this earth and until we come up with a better explanation we go with the one we've got. The creation accounts (yes that's plural!) in Genesis were written long before our current culture existed. They were not written with modern science in mind or even our preoccupation with chronology for that matter, they were written with a specific goal in mind from a specific people that lived then. The mistake many of us today make is to project our culture onto theirs without realizing we have to read Genesis with an understanding of the people and mindset who wrote it.

quote:

---

I'm not even gonna say shit about this entirely biased and stupid paragraph.

---

Heh! Too late

quote:

---

I announce that a Good Xian is a Xian who keeps his Xianity to his Xing self.

---

That is about as non-Biblical of a statement that can be uttered. Care to back it up?


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

quote:

---

The real issue is how do you explain to nonXians how so much physical data looks like the world is ancient while you maintain it is only a few thousand years old; among other things.

---

I don't get that at all. That seems like a question I would ask a Christian.

quote:

---

That is about as non-Biblical of a statement that can be uttered. Care to back it up?

---

The Bible says that Christian should find his own way. Therefor, pushing any form of Christianity on anyone is wrong. Trying to get anyone to believe in Christianity is unethical, even by Biblical standards. Missionaries are about the most unchristian organization there is. It's like saying to people that even if there is a heaven, and even if you are a good person that you wont get into heaven (like its some kind of fucking night club) if you dont believe in god. I'm not a bad person, I live my life based on moral and personal values. I am a satanist/humanist. But even though I live a good life, and I treat people good - I give to charities, I help my friends - I can't get into heaven. So... in that case, I say fuck God.. that elitist bastard.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

To claim that science says there is no god is pure ignorance.

Science may not have evidence to prove there is a god, but a lack of evidence does not prove that something does not exist.

Evolution, in any of it's accepted flavors, does not prove that god does not exist, nor is in any way anti-christian.

This is very troubling:

quote:

---

Science (evolution) says that there is no God. Anyone who says otherwise is demeaning it's value. That is the BASIS of science in itself; Without this basis, science is no longer science: it is DOGMA

---

The basis of science is that there is no god? Are you insane? The "basis" of sicence is the desire to learn and be able to explain the things in our universe. To try to say that the basis of that learning is the scientifically baseless notion of an entity not existing completely undermines what science is all about.

You seem to have things a bit backwards - to say that sicence says there is no god is very dogmatic, and is very much akin to saying the 'the bible says there is a god, so there is'.

It is insulting to science when someone tries to use it in the very manner for which they condemn religious people using their religious dogma.

Understand that I say this as a stuanch atheist myself.

{{edit - sanzen posted while I was typing...

What I've never understood is why someone would be so against religion, and yet - rather than simply skip religion - must cling to such silly things as satanism. Of course, depending on where you go, satanism can consist of a great many things. In any case, it is pure nonsense and it's very existence says a great deal about the people who follow it.

If you're so sure there is no god, and so sure that the big religions are all wrong, then grow up and stop mimicking the very things you condemn.

(Edited by DL-44 on 05-12-2004 20:58)

quote:

---

Evolution, in any of it's accepted flavors, does not prove that god does not exist, nor is in any way anti-christian.

---

Yes, yes it does. If it didn't, then God wouldn't have created man, he would have created little micro-organisms billions of years ago that evolved in to the billions of lifeforms we have today. It says in the Bible that God made the earth, and all the lifeforms, all the bodies of landscapes and brought light to the earth in 7 days. This in and of itself delineates any symbiotic there could be between Evolution and Creationism. The bible is a fictional bible meant for entertainment and perhaps something to base your morals on, jesus is a moral figure. Not a prophet, not the son of god. The bible is no way to explain the origins of the world, and the beings in it. You cannot merge religion and science - it's blasphemy or it's illogical.

quote:

---

It is insulting to science when someone tries to use it in the very manner for which they condemn religious people using their religious dogma.

---

It's also insulting when someone tries to use scientific basis to fill the gaps of their little fantasy world Gods. You marr the credibility of hundreds of years of people who were being persecuted for scientific (evolutionary) research by the very hands of people who are now trying to use it to have the upper hand yet again. Christians are trying to dominate the world, man, and they'll suck up every bit of anti-christian evidence and try to use it to explain why they're right. Christians will not admit that evolution could be true, even when presented with facts.

quote:

---

What I've never understood is why someone would be so against religion, and yet - rather than simply skip religion - must cling to such silly things as satanism

---

Said someone who doesn't know what satanism/humanism is.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

(Edited by Sanzen on 05-12-2004 21:08)

quote:

---

The Bible says that Christian should find his own way.

---

Where?


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Sazen stop being so ignorant...dont forget religion doesnt just consist of christianity and we live in the world where people believe not only in "god" but also spirits, random divinity and other numerous dieties and lets not forget that wars have been waged for thousands of years because of each side's stories.

So not only God, but Zeus, and Allah and The great Spirit of Bahram and yadda yadda...here is a good site for you www.religioustolerance.org

quote:

---

Why do we so quickly forget that some to the greatest scientific minds of centuries gone by were religious people? Do the names Kepler, Galileo or Newton ring any bells? These men did not see a barrier between the two and nor should you.

---

now bugs, show me the proof that those people were religious, for all I know most of them ussually were members of secret society that strongly opposed religion/church

I cannot imagine Galileo being religious after what church had done to him...no wonder he joined Illuminatis
and Isaac Newton being member of "the Priory of Sion"

(Edited by Ruski on 05-12-2004 22:01)

quote:

---

Sazen stop being so ignorant...dont forget we not only live in the world of where people believe in "god" but also spirits, random divinity and other numerous dieties and lets not forget that wars have been waged for thousands of years becouse of them they oppose one another because each claims their story is the true one and their way is the right way.

---

Hahaha, I am a satanist, therefor I believe in a carnal spirit or spiritual primal force that is "satan". Or maybe you should read that link you sent me

Since when was it assumed that I am an atheist?


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

(Edited by Sanzen on 05-12-2004 21:58)

If anything, evolution could be used as evidence to prove the existence of God.

Oh man, forget it. This is pointless.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

Sanzen, please tell us where the bible says a christian must find his own way.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

[romoved sentence]was useless...


Is that Mr.Satan himself below? (hence: sarcasm)

http://www.waxy.org/random/images/weblog/gay_satan.jpg

Edit by Wes: Sorry, I simply refused to read this thread with the horizontal scroll.

(Edited by Ruski on 05-12-2004 22:22)

(Edited by Wes on 05-13-2004 02:37)

You really have no idea what you're talking about


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

quote:

---

You really have no idea what you're talking about

---

hey pot, this is kettle...

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

(Edited by Fig on 05-12-2004 22:18)

And this is lock...

*wishes I had mod powers*

I'm done with this thread, you guys are idiots. I thought this was a decent discussion up until ruski came into it.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

There is a significant lack of wisdom I see here.

There is no such thing as lack of wisdom when it comes to opinions, because thats what opinions are.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

quote:

---

decent discussion

---

decent discussion???


by insulting Chrisitans and telling them the way they should fallow their faith? as if you know everything?

Since when do you think you know everything?

I didn't tell anyone how to follow their faith, I was just voicing my opinion. Bugimus is a smart guy, and I enjoy discussion. I was just playing devil's advocate (no pun intended).

I never said his God was a little guy with a toy trident. That's insulting.

Since when do you think YOU know everything?


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

quote:

---

The Bible says that Christian should find his own way. Therefor, pushing any form of Christianity on anyone is wrong. Trying to get anyone to believe in Christianity is unethical, even by Biblical standards. Missionaries are about the most unchristian organization there is. It's like saying to people that even if there is a heaven, and even if you are a good person that you wont get into heaven (like its some kind of fucking night club) if you dont believe in god.

---

ok, what do you call this? whoa re you even to say this? Buggimus asked you to clarify and point him out where it says. Yet you didnt...

Me, I never claimed to know anything, I didn't hold any side on this thread, my main purpose was to say that 2 things have nothing to do with each other and should be kept seperate and people should believe whatever they want to. As well shut up about it.

quote:

---

Me, I never claimed to know anything, I didn't hold any side on this thread, my main purpose was to say that 2 things have nothing to do with each other and should be kept seperate and people should believe whatever they want to.

---

That is exactly the point of my first post on this thread until it got out of hand. I don't think they can be, or should be, mixed. And it was as simple as that - it turned from that to me attacking the christians and people who dont even know what satanists stand for attacking me (I can only suppose you think i'm one of those people that everyone picked on and i try and cast spells and I wear black all the time, and then drink cats blood ... or something... as is the christian-given stereotype).


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

to be honest I have never met them and never seen them (like they say, only in America)

I am yet to live in the united states and find out.

quote:

---

Yes, yes it does. If it didn't, then God wouldn't have created man, he would have created little micro-organisms billions of years ago that evolved in to the billions of lifeforms we have today

---

No, no it doesn't.

It proves that genesis cannot be taken 100% literally. And that's about it.

The concept of god is not confined to the bible or to the catholic faith.

Science cannot - so far - prove that there is not a god who may have in fact created " little micro-organisms billions of years ago that evolved in to the billions of lifeforms we have today".

It is only blasphemy to think so in certain sects of certain faiths.

You are lumping a whole lot of things together and mocking the concept of science by assuming that it proves things which it cannot.

Not to mention the fact that the christians took everything over a very long timje ago. These days, they play a far lesser role in the world, in the sense of the religion itself and it's role in the world.
.

Regardless o the specifics of your particular brand of 'satanism', you shun religion, yet you cling to one, and mockery of one at that. That's just silly, IMO.

(Edited by DL-44 on 05-12-2004 23:59)

satanism isn't a religion to me, it's more of a philosophy. I dont shun religion at all. I shun christianity.

I'm not saying that science proves there is no god. I'm saying evolutionary principle in turn equates to there being no god. Darwinism denies religion. Darwinism is the basis of all evolutionary principles. I dont care if christianity wants to twist evolution to fit their needs. But scientists should not twist creationism to fit their needs.

If you can't take one part of the bible literally, how are you supposed to take any of it literally. I read the bible as a fiction book. Jesus is a moral character, and nothing else.

The only time I said it PROVED God didn't exist was a reflex post to someone's reply, I never said it PROVED anything myself. I'm a skeptic. I dont say things are PROVEN often.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

(Edited by Sanzen on 05-13-2004 00:23)

quote:

---

I dont shun religion at all. I shun christianity.

---

Oh, ok. Thankyou for clarifying.

quote:

---

Darwinism denies religion. Darwinism is the basis of all evolutionary principles.

---

No it doesn't, or at least I can't see how it does. As far as I'm concerned the theory that Charles Darwin came up with had nothing to do with God or beings of divinity. Scientific evolution is a fact, creatures have evolved and adapted over millions of years. The theory that humans have evolved from apes, using the same scientific fact that we know as evolution, is a theory.

I just thought I'd clear that up.

(Edited by InSiDeR on 05-13-2004 00:26)

Well you can interpret everything as loosely as possible and you can get around any real solid opinion. I have my own opinion because I take the bible literally. I take darwin's writings literally. Taken literally these things cannot go exist. In my opinion.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

therefore you have very poor result and strategy for debating/arguing, since you blable gibberish
that doesn't makes sense and shows that you have no absolute idea what you are talking about. =)

ask anyone around, they will say the samething.

Ruski!!! Your gay devil guy is taking us all to horizontal scroll bar hell, size him down a bit if you don't mind


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Haha, I didn't know this was the 'who can be the biggest asshole' competition.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

Sanzen, how can you take the bible literally when you don't believe a word of it? I'm confused Have you even read it? Were you ever going to show me where it says that a christian must find his own way? If you know where it is, I would really like to see it because I don't recall any such verse.

quote:

---

If you can't take one part of the bible literally, how are you supposed to take any of it literally.

---

I hear this a lot from non-believers and believers alike. I'm very sorry to put it this way, but it is an asenine approach to understanding what is written in that book. For example, when Christ says, "I am the vine; you are the branches." Does anyone in their right mind think that he is a plant and I am a branch of that plant? It's absurd to think that every single word written in that book is to be taken literally.

So how do you know what should be and what shouldn't be read that way? By THINKING!!! Study study study is the only way to know what that book is about. We need to know about culture, history, writing styles, etc. All of these things allow us to know whether or not Genesis says that the world was actually created in 6 days, blah blah blah. Is it really too much to ask for people to exert some effort when discussing works of antiquity like the bible?


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Bugimus, you're truly the only other person who is trying to have a civilized argument, and I respect that. If I said anything particularly offensive to christians it was because I got a little heated, and I was trying to have a real discussion.

That being said, I read the bible some time ago... and I haven't read it in a very good while, I couldn't quote you what verse it is from. Maybe it's just a personal belief of mine or some of my christian friends that I kinda picked up.

There is a truly broad line between metaphors and the 6 day creation myth, or noah's ark or some of the other stories.. Those aren't metaphors.. they are major portions of the bible, and I really dont see how you can digest them any other way than literally.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

quote:

---

I'm not saying that science proves there is no god.

---

quote:

---

Science (evolution) says that there is no God. Anyone who says otherwise is demeaning it's value. That is the BASIS of science in itself;

---

quote:

---

"Evolution, in any of it's accepted flavors, does not prove that god does not exist"

Yes, yes it does.

---

So....ok...

That aside, evolutionary theory still does not preclude "god" in any way shape or form. PERIOD.

It certainly does preclude a variety of 'fundamentalist' faiths. But that's a far cry from precluding the concept of god.

DL, by the time i made those comments we were strictly talking about Christian God and Evolution. Not other religions.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

quote:

---

And it was as simple as that - it turned from that to me attacking the christians and people who dont even know what satanists stand for attacking me

---

actually, the only two christians i'm aware of in this thread, bugs and myself, haven't said a negative word towards you.

as far as taking the bible literally, i take the bible as truth but not necessarily literally at all times, it needs to be read in context like anything else. i'm not entirely sure why the seven days of creation absolutely must be seven 24 hour earth days when the earth didn't even exist for several of them...

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

quote:

---

DL, by the time i made those comments we were strictly talking about Christian God and Evolution. Not other religions.

---

Ok. how does that change anything?

because christianity is a fundamentalist religion, whether it is practiced fundamentally or not.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

AHAHA...man you are really funny fellow..

be it Christianity or Islam or Judaism or Hinduism , it doesn't matter.
They can be either practiced fundamentaly or not. It's all up to individual.

And judging from the replays you have said, you sure don't know much about religions and my best advice would be to try learn somethign about them before ever saying anything.

You have contradicted yourself in numerous ways and claimed plenty of incorrect descriprtions of christianity. =)

then why do you keep fighting against me?


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

I do not fight "against" you, I simply point out where you are inaccurate and where you are making blind prejudice against others faith. =)

i dont see you.... pointing out anything.... just hurling random insults at me.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

ohh fuck....then you will have to re-read everything from the top buddy boy...=)

and please stop showing how much of an idiot you really are...we don't wanna see it anymore.

mmmm name calling. where's a mad-sci when you need one.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

InSiDeR,

quote:

---

The theory that humans have evolved from apes, using the same scientific fact that we know as evolution, is a theory.

---

is just not accurate. Mankind did NOT evolve from Apes. So this "theory" is not very well supported. Rather, Evolution teaches, that Mankind and Apes had a common ancestor.

That is a huge difference.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

*sigh*

ok whatever

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

quote:

---

*sigh*

ok whatever

---

insider - the distinction WS pointed out to you is an *extremely* important one, and one that a great many people have somehow failed to recognize, which has led to much of the bullshit surrounding the evolution/creationism "feud" so to speak.

It's not a "whatever" kind of issue....

And yes, as Ini said, there are many prominent scientists who are also faithfully religious. There are many religious figures who are very scientifically motivated.

Only when you try to overgeneralize, focus too narrowily, or rely on pseudo-science do you come into real conflict between religion and science.

Now if you're going to talk about taking the bible literally - what version of the bible are we to use? With so many varied translations and interpretations, the only way to get the real message is to use the original texts. But....even then, there are many things that are vague and open to interpretation. And of course, who's to say which are actually the original texts? Most of the actual originals simply don't exist.

How are we to take as the literal, absolute word of god what has been filtered and translated and re-translated by numerous men? How are we to rely on the choices the catholic church made for which texts should and shouldn't be included in the bible in the first place?

That's the equivelent of the pseudo-science you use to claim sicence has proven god does not exist.

It's *all* interpretation.

There is no absolute.

I apologuise. I didn't mean to make it seam like I just shrugged it off.

I think religion (or more specifically, deism) has no place in an enlightened society.

I also think that Darwin had a good idea, then got carried away.



If I think God AND Evolution are bunk - what DO I believe?

Well, White hawk, what do you believe? You don't believe in God, and you don't accept Evolution...

Then how do you explain how things became as they now are?

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

You know? I didn't even take a look at the site that began this thread since I came in mid way. I just did and, wow.

quote:

---

What about dinosaurs? Did they live with Adam and Eve?
Did Noah take them on the ark?
The dinosaur question is dealt with for over 2 hours on my video-tape #3 of the creation seminar series. To summarize briefly: Dinosaurs were made the sixth day with the rest of the animals. Noah took them on the ark (probably young ones). They have always lived with man. After the flood many died from the climate changes and from man's hunting. They were called dragons for many centuries. (The word dinosaur was just invented in 1841.) A few small dinosaurs may still be alive today in remote parts of the world. There have been over 20,000 reported sightings of dinosaur like creatures in this century. A few pictures and stories are on my web site.

---

and

quote:

---

If there was really a world-wide flood where are all the bones of the humans that drowned?
I believe there are few human fossils for several reasons.

God made the world full of plants and animals but only two people. 1600 years later the world was still full of plants and animals but still not full of people. There were not as many of them to be drowned.

Men are smarter than animals (That is, some men), so he would figure out a way to avoid drowning until the last possible minute by making makeshift rafts or holding to floating logs and tend to be deposited on top rather than in the sediments. Therefore he would not fossilize. For example, millions of bison were slaughtered in the west a century ago, yet few, if any, fossilized. They were left on top to rot, bones and all.

Since so many researchers have the preconceived (and false) idea that man has been evolving from small and dumb to big and smart they may tend to not even recognize and properly identify bone fragments of humans that may have been huge by today?s standards. Their prejudice is that ancient man was smaller.

In spite of the above problems, Marvin Lubenow, an expert on fossil humans and author of Bones of Contention (available from CSE) says that about 4000 human fossil remains have been found.

The evolutionist has a serious problem with this same question. If man has really been here for millions of years there should be many thousands if not millions of fossils of their bones like we have of the animals. The "where are the bones?" question is really a question for the evolutionist to answer if he expects all the taxpayers to support his religion in the school system.

---

This really depresses me I think this is the type of bending over backwards type of logic that results from insisting a literal read of the creation account in Genesis. If you are constrained to that reading, then there is really no other way to deal with so much of the data we have about earth's history but to just lose all credibility with anyone that values clear thinking.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

This one is for you DL-44, InSiDeR, etc.

quote:

---

God Doesn't Believe In Atheists

God does not believe in atheists.
His presence from creation is quiet clear.
God does not believe in atheists.
It takes a fool to tell him he?s not here.


God believes atheists can get born again
And become a new creation,
But they?d best admit the world around them first
And ask for their salvation
But to only cry, ?Recycle!? is the worst.


God believes atheists do have certain rights
To seek and search the scriptures
It says, ?Come now, let us reason? that?s for them.
But it doesn?t give them reason to
Make up what God is saying
Until it?s no true benefit to them.


Blee dop, sklee dop, sklee dilly dilly
Bah donna bee on a Saturday night.
If that sounded like nonsense to you too,
Those schools have got some books for you.

---

I guess that will show you guys! HA!

I need an aspirin


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Yeah, you need something.

Those guys also say kangaroos live in the Middle East, and Apple Computers is a front for communism.

Bugs, things like that make chrisitanity look very bad....it's sad
appearently, I have to say it again...only in America

(Edited by Ruski on 05-14-2004 16:32)

Whoo-boy! When a thread degenrates, it really does degenerate!

Sanzen, not to offend, but I haven't seen such a clear case of close-mindedness in a long time. I can see there, towards the bottom of the conversation that you back-pedal a little to cover some of your earlier outbursts, but you really should go back and re-read the first part of the coversation. You don't come across as a person willing to discuss/debate on a rational level.

Everybody is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs. Some of those beliefs include telling others about your beliefs: called proselytization. There are so many denominations of Christianity, how can you lump all forms of their faith into one narrow set of thoughts? Beliefs are totally varied across every sect of Christianity... from fundamentalist creationists (frequently Baptist), to the completely liberal sects like the Episcopalians. And even within sects there is division of beliefs. Some Baptists believe in evolution... some Episcopalians believe in creationism. This might seem paradoxical, but again, everyone's entitled to their own beliefs. Spirituality and belief is intensely personal. Just like you don't want to be told what to think or believe, neither does anyone else.

But if you want to state your opinion, that's perfectly ok. However, to respond to a post in this fashion:

quote:

---

Anyways, I'm EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY tired of christians. In particular, the christians who claim that evolution and creationism can co-exist. It's ok if a christian wants to claim this, BUT: Science says NO. It's not a two-way relationship. Christians can believe in some kind of macro-evolution, but evolution says that god doesn't exist. This is how you know SOMETHING is wrong. I have christians who harrass me daily and try to convert me. This is just more of their bullshit, trying to run the world. It disgusts me.

---

is nothing short of inflammatory, however willing you are to discuss the topic rationally. You have to expect that others will respond to that post in the manner we see above... there's nothing in it that invites a rational discussion of the matter...

That said, the original site posted, struck me with a weird mixture of amusement and distress... These people really seem to be reaching far to explain dinosaurs in the context of the Bible. (that's probably the understatement of the thread...) I did get a chuckle from it!

Sanzen, while it may not be directly stated in the THEORY of evolution, notice it does not say law, it is entirely possible that while a god created a starting set of creatures those creatures eventually evovled into what we see today and will continue evolving. If it was called or ever becomes the LAW of evolution then you may perhaps have a slight chance of being right, but it will never become law. For it to become law we would first have to prove that god does or does not exist. If it is proved that god does exist then science will be forced to except the bible as a scientific theory *now theres an oxymoron that can't happen* if it is proved that god doesn't exist, as you an atheist who takes the bible literally, have tried to prove then the bible would be seriously discredited and evolution would become scientific law.
*examples of ways combinations could work:
fruit after the tree is planted it to continues to grow by itself to produce fruit by itself. Evolution is nothing more than an extremely slow growth process leading to a better product. (Please do not try to use the Galapagos Finch Theory for evolution it can work as a combination example also it it will make you sound stupid.

Also I may add that a discussion and or debate which is what IS going on here doesn't have to be completely sterile of emotion in fact it makes it all the more interesting. Please clarify your meaning of civilized since to me it doesn't mean people must agree with one person or otherwise they are wrong.

You said that you dont shun religion you only shun christianity. How does that work monkey-boy? Christianity is a major RELIGION in fact it is the worlds largest RELIGION.

Also you seem to be truly paranoid by assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is attacking you. Ruski was never attacking you as he stated earlier in the posts he was only pointing out contradictions and as you put it even earlier playing devil's advocate. But of course you wouldn't have seen this through your bigotry (if you need the definition just ask)

However, I do agree with you that people should not press their beliefs upon others who do not express interest in them. Unfortunately you seem to have made you self into a hypocrit by trying to push science on everybody else in this forum.You also did this by when you added emotion to the debate, you allowed yourself the excuse of getting a little heated but nobody else and when others added emotion you said that it was wrong and 'uncivilized'. Have you ever heard of the term Heated Debate in case you haven't the definition of it is a discussion between two or more parties of opposing sides who are debating a topic that all sides feel strongly about. By making the statements that you did you obviously created a heated debate, thus creating your own monster. If you can't handle your own monster get out of the laboratory. So please the next time you debate keep these things in mind and try not to:
1.contradict yourself so much
and
2. give your opposition so much ammunition against you.

If one match can start a forest fire then why does it take the whole box to start a BBQ Grill?

You really cant take the bible (which im guessing you haven't read and don't plan to) literally because it is chock full of PARABLES AND METAPHORS.

If one match can start a forest fire then why does it take the whole box to start a BBQ Grill?

Bugimus I am no longer an atheist, thankyou.

Really?!? I'm very sorry for missing that, but what are you now? I'm dying to know


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Guess!

Sanzen YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT! You say (and/or imply) that you don't believe in any god. You have contradicted youself again. You acted offended early when you accused us of assuming you are a satanist givin the impression that you aren't knowing full well that if you did admit to being a satanist would show that you do believe in a god. To believe in Satan you must believe somewhat in God. Since Satan was thrown down by god for his lust for power. If you or anybody want proof of how I know that Sanzen is a satanist look at the thread titled Satan, 3rd page 22 thread from the top tenth from the bottom. Where he states and i quote:
I am a satanist.

If one match can start a forest fire then why does it take the whole box to start a BBQ Grill?

Yea that was one of the things I hated when I was an atheist, telling someone 'I don't believe in God,' and then almost everytime the person I'm talking to said 'So like do you believe in Satan or something?'

...

I said in THIS THREAD that I am a satanist. You, sir, have no clue what you're talking about.

Most satanists do not believe in Satan as a "god". And I never said I didn't believe in any god. And even if I did believe in a god, it doesn't mean I can't argue against it. I do not believe in a Christian God, NOR DOES THAT IMPLY that Satanists believe in the christian depiction of Satan. So i'm sorry to say that your investigative explorations have only proven that you didn't really read this thread and you were just jumping on the bandwagon to attack me.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

There has been no 'bandwagon to attack' you sanzen.....I think you've got a bit of a chip on that shoulder.

One person that I can see was on the attack. Everyone other than you and he have simply been trying to have a conversation....

You've made sure to not address most of the points people have brought up during the conversation though, instead feeding into the "attacking" nonsense further.

And, though I don't see the point either way, yes - you did state in the 'satan' thread that you are a satanist.

(Edited by DL-44 on 05-15-2004 02:12)

quote:

---

You've made sure to not address most of the points people have brought up during the conversation though, instead feeding into the "attacking" nonsense further

---

which ones haven't I address. I explained bugimus' question. And as far as I know I answered everything else.

Yes. I did say I am a satanist in the Satan thread; and I said I'm a satanist in this thread. Satanist is a generalized term - I guess you'd say I'm more of a humanist. But Satanism is a little more explanative.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

correct me if im wrong (or if you dare) but its my understanding that satanists believe that god is the bad guy for being a holier than thou bigoted asshole and satan is only trying to bring him down off is high horse-i.e. satan is really the good guy

quote:

---

Guess!

---

christian?

as far as I know that is fairly incorrect. Perhaps that is some sect of satanism.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

quote:

---

as far as I know

---

well said

quote:

---

Got pie?

---

cherry! with ice cream!

quote:

---

Guess!

---

I think, Buddhist...

Now how did you know?

Sanzen said:

quote:

---

which ones haven't I address. I explained bugimus' question.

---

Yes, you did answer my question. I appreciate that very much. I am fairly familiar with the bible and I am virtually sure you're not going to find that in there BUT if it is there and you do run across it, please let me know

quote:

---

because christianity is a fundamentalist religion, whether it is practiced fundamentally or not.

---

I found this very interesting. I think I agree with you on this. The problem is that you cannot tell someone else how to believe no more than you can tell them how to spell and/or pronounce their name. There are a lot of people running around this world calling themselves Christians who believe and do things that are very remote from anything you will find in the bible. Similarly you will come across people who spell their names in the most odd ways and pronounce them completely different from any phonetic rules that I know of. But I respect that and pronounce and spell the names as they wish just as I respect everyone's right to practice and believe in anything they want.

On the flip side of that coin, I will point out just how much a name will be spelled strangely or prounounced contrary to the language. I will also point out to people that you can call yourself Christian if you like but that doesn't mean it actually has any basis in what Christ said. An example of this would be Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons. Then insist on calling themselves Christians and from a certain point of view I suppose they are. But if you get right down to what the bible defines Christianity to be, there will be some serious variances there. It doesn't mean they can't call themselves that but it doesn't change the facts of what they believe and what is written in the bible.

Anyways, I got a bit side-tracked on that. Sanzen, so maybe you can better describe just what you consider to be a satanist. Do you believe that satan actually exists? Do you believe he is a god? or the God? Or is this just a humanist version of satanism that makes no claims on the supernatural whatsoever?

InSiDeR, I am going to guess that you hopped onto a Pantheist bandwagon or some derivation thereof. Come on, let's hear it. If you say Xian, then we really need to talk

[edit] well, you answered while I was typing... ok what kind of buddhist are you?

. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 05-15-2004 07:20)

quote:

---

Now how did you know?

---

well, it's not that hard...I, in no way could see you be christian. Simply because I see..christianity never brought you any kind of comfort and peace, just unansweared questions....recently I saw, you have calmed down and talked very possitively, without rant etc.

I also remember you talked about buddhism couple of times before...saying things as if it can be applied to everyday life etc...

Since buddhism doesn not focus on theological and ideological stuff...it is easer to find comfort for someone with your "kind" of mind.
Plus I am sure you never liked idea of deities, gods and goddess...and Buddhism doesn't has that..(all IMO)

As for what kind of Buddhis you are...hmm... you probably fallow "old" Buddhism, that they see buddha as a teacher and apply his simple lessons/ideas to make their everyday life better and more peaceful. (then again I could be wrong)


----

As for me...I think I mentioned before that I was an atheist...yeah I am sure I did.
Well recently I have been to numerous websites such as atheist.org etc. Reading their motives.
and I found them pretty lame...they fight... argue...bitch about civil right activism and all other lame prejudicial activities.

I only used term "atheist" to define myself exactly how it translates "without-diety"

But I see more and more that in America atheism is about "to prove unexistance of diety"
overall this is all Atheism seems to be about... Existance or nonexistance of diety.
( I am sure there are individuals calling themself athiest who do not agree on those definitions...
Thats fine...

Since those never were my motives, I cannot define myself much of an atheist...


I do not think there is a faith that can define my complex mind in one or two words...
so if it comes to religion, beliefes, philosophy...perhaps the closes definition I can think of is:
Humanism- a progressive lifestance that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead meaningful, ethical lives capable of adding to the greater good of humanity

Just keep in mind...I do not fallow it as a religion(I view it as a phylosophical definition I can use to call myself). I in no way view world religions as unecessary , useless and foolish as if we had to abandoned it long time ago.
No..I see a religion as very necessary for our society and I will do my best to tolerante it..that is exactly how I stand on idea of religions...they deserve tolerance.

(Edited by Ruski on 05-15-2004 15:52)

If you have any education at all you will know that Dinosaurs were around with the first men - they were created by the Supreme Being as pets for humans. This is well documented in the First Book of FlintStones.

Was that a sarcasm?

Humanism is just Satanism without religious dogma.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

Um, the kind of buddhist that's me? I really don't want to get caught up in its denominations. I look at it as a way of life rather than a religion. I know there are Zen, Tao, Nara, Mahayana, etc. I'm just buddhist .

Sanzen,
I believe that it is time for me (and maybe you) to tip our hands. You have every right to argue a side that you do not nessicarily believe in, however by being so close minded in the beginning it made you seem like you were holeheartedly for extremist evolutionism as you explained in the beggining. Also when you said Satanism I merely looked up the definition of the word and usded knowledge from books that i have look/skimmed through to support my arguement. I have been reading this thread and if it seemed like I was attacking you I did not mean to be doing this, the reason it may have seemed like i was 'attacking' you was that it pisses me off when people take a select portion of one group and shove it on to all of that group. So we have had some miscommunication. (there are sects of satanism) also in the world encyclopedia it states that most forms of satanism or devil worship believe that he is either an extremely powerful spirit or a god and that he wishes to be God and/or superimpose himself as God. Also you may want to enlighten us to exactly your beliefs instead of putting a general name to it that way we know your side as well as the other and can then continue to debate more effectively. Also if you actually do believe in satanism and not a similiar yet different faith you may want to get used to people attacking right off the bat since most of the world sees satanism as a horrid and awful thing. Again if my first impression was not a good one keep in mind it was only that of a person pissed off about one thing and writing about a similiar subject.

If one match can start a forest fire then why does it take the whole box to start a BBQ Grill?

The best and most impartial definition of satanism is one you're going to find at http://www.religioustolerance.org

I know for a fact that there are some sects of satanism that believe in what you said, however I don't think the Church of Satan is in the belief that Satan wants to be God. There are some sects that believe that since God is all-forgiving, Satan is the diety that rules while we are in human form and he is their God while on earth. I think the adopted form of Satanism (most commonly practiced) is one where Satan is a personification of basic animalistic instinct and true human nature. Satanists do not actually worship Satan, at least the Christian depiction of Satan. As Satan was a Christian term, but actually the idea of a character like Satan traces back into greek mythology. The idea that Satanists drink goat's blood and sacrifice virgins is in fact a lie perpetrated by the clergy in an attempt to exhile/persecute Satanists/pagans or dissuade their youths from becoming Satanists. In theory, though, Satanists are the exact opposite of most large religions. Most Satanist philosophy is not anti-christian... but anti-hindu and anti-buddhist or anti-pagan. It is because these religions prohibit humans from some of their most natural instincts. This is the real part where I become more humanist and not satanist. Because I am heavily anti-vanity. BUT the ideology of Satanism is that whatever makes you happy, you should do or it should be. So if you are anti-vanity, and that's what makes you happy then it's ok. Basically, Satanism glorifies satisfaction thru any means, physically, mentally or sexually - So long as it doesn't impede on another person's freedom. All 7 deadly sins are glorified by Satanism. I have a copy of The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey in PDF format if anyone is interested in reading it.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

quote:

---

Sanzen said:

Humanism is just Satanism without religious dogma.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

---

ok, ok...I am tired of insluting you...

but for "satan's" sake..quit being such a dipshit...

I have said it before...
(Humanism is a progressive lifestance that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead meaningful, ethical lives capable of adding to the greater good of humanity)

and I am gonna ask you...what the hell does it has to do with satanism or some kind of spirit called "satan"? (which you mentioned before you believe in)

No, seriusly...what are you gonna say next? Judaism is the samething as Hinduism but without many gods?

your way of thinking just amazes me...

Hey Ruski:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/satanism.htm

The reason I made that comparison in the first place, Ruski the Enlightened, is because even in the Satanic bible there is a section about why it is called Satanism and not Humanism. The basic principles of both philosophies hold striking similarities. The only real reason you're so irritated by that comment is you don't want to be connected to Satanism in anyway because of it's negative connotation.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

no...because it totaly has nothing to do with humanism.

and if it does, prove it.

(Edited by Ruski on 05-16-2004 01:32)

The bigger issue for me is that satanism simply apes christianity in so many ways that it just becomes ridiculous.

To shun one thing only to embrace an imitator is something that strikes me as completely absurd.

quote:

---

no...because it totaly has nothing to do with humanism.

---

Ruski are you even looking at the links people post on here.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/humanism.htm

quote:

---

To shun one thing only to embrace an imitator is something that strikes me as completely absurd.

---

What are you talking about DL? That doesn't even make sense. The philosophies of both systems are completely the opposite, and there is nothing about Satanism that imitates Christianity, and it has been around as long, if not longer than Christianity in several different forms.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

quote:

---

Sanzen said:

Ruski are you even looking at the links people post on here.

---

ofcourse I did, what about it?

quote:

---

The terms Humanism and Humanist are essentially meaningless when used by themselves

---

This being said, I can see how you can find it hard to see my comparison. Satanism is a combination of about 3 types of Humanism (Cultural, Literary and Philosophical).

Points that coincide between Secular (the most OPPOSITE) and Satanism:

"the preciousness and dignity of the individual person is a central humanist value."

a rejection of divinely inspired ethical and moral codes in favor of codes derived by reason from the human condition

And most secular forms of Satanism coincide with this point:

the belief that full responsibility for the future of the world, its political systems, its ecology, etc. rests with humans. There is no God in heaven to intervene and save us from a disaster

quote:

---

They feel that religious groups' "promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful."

---

This is a very very Satanist belief

quote:

---

Since most believe that an afterlife is non-existent, they regard life here on earth to be particularly precious.

---

It is said in the Satanic bible that all life on earth is to be held as sacred, and that human life should be regarded as the most precious of all

quote:

---

They are energetic supporters of the separation of church and state.

---

Obviously a very Satanic belief.

Pretty much EVERY point of humanist philosophy coincides with Satanism. With the exception that they have a firm belief in the absence of supernatural beings, the rest of the philosophy is the same. I was just making an observation, man.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

quote:

---

Sanzen said:

They feel that religious groups' "promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful."

---

quote:

---

Sanzen said:

Since most believe that an afterlife is non-existent, they regard life here on earth to be particularly precious.

---

quote:

---

Sanzen said:

They are energetic supporters of the separation of church and state.

---

atheists support those motives too..so what of it?

am I supposed to call them satanists too?

I think there is a good reason why humanist are called humans and athiest are atheist and those satanist satanist.

They have something that seperates them...

quote:

---

Sanzen said:

With the exception that they have a firm belief in the absence of supernatural beings

---

that is a very big difference, not minor...


---
add: your explanations are absurd, simple as that...

I can compare Buddhist and Christians in numerous ways and say they are the samething exept christians have Jesus as thier Savior and God. =)

(Edited by Ruski on 05-16-2004 20:21)

quote:

---

atheists support those motives too..so what of it?

am I supposed to call them satanists too?

---

Actually yes, by christian standards, anyone who isn't a christian is a satanist.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

I can't go on anymore....what a dumbass.

quote:

---

Actually yes, by christian standards, anyone who isn't a christian is a satanist.

---

who are you to say that for christians?

lets see...Bugimus? Fig? outcydr? mahjqa?

please answear this question for our satanist friend....

If someone is not christian is he/she supposed to be concidered satanist?

At this point I just enjoy saying things to make you angry. I hope you realize this by now. You're more intolerant than any person I've ever met, because you refuse to let anyone have an opinion other than your own.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

Sanzen, I would be very interested in reading the pdf file of the Satanic Bible if you would consider emailing it to me at Fircrafter02@aol.com. Also you may or may not be interested in this but is said that one of the places that christians got their depiction of the devil (whole pic of a satyr with a biforcated tail and pitchfork) is it is actually the pict of the old wiccan god (or one of them im not sure). Not exactly tolerant of them huh?

If one match can start a forest fire then why does it take the whole box to start a BBQ Grill?

I'll send it over in a zip. As far as Christians being intolerant of Wiccans - yea thats pretty true, but Paganism was around long before Christianity. I believe that you're not delving far enough back if you're looking to find the origins of the Satanic representation though, the Satanist depiction of "Satan" could be traced back to the greek god Pan, who is the greek God of Lust.

[edit]
Says that email address doesn't exist sangreal
[/edit]


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

(Edited by Sanzen on 05-16-2004 23:00)

quote:

---

Sanzen said:

At this point I just enjoy saying things to make you angry

---

What makes you assume I am angry?

quote:

---

Sanzen said:

You're more intolerant than any person I've ever met, because you refuse to let
anyone have an opinion other than your own.

---

look who is talking

quote:

---

What are you talking about DL? That doesn't even make sense. The philosophies of both systems are completely the opposite, and there is nothing about Satanism that imitates Christianity, and it has been around as long, if not longer than Christianity in several different forms.

---

apparently you have a lot to learn about your own "religion" and about the corrolations between it and christianity (primarily that satanism largely evolved as a "counter-christianity" movement and as such mimicked, but in reverse, the ceremonial aspects of christianity).

It's exactly this "completely opposite" aspect of satanism that makes it a mirror of christianity.

The various non-christian religions that have been dubbed as "satanism" by some are hardly that. It's absurd to try applying the term in that way - regardless of waht some 2-bit web site has to say about it

quote:

---

Paganism was around long before Christianity.

---

yeah, no shit. "pagan" is simply a generic term for someone who does not follow a version of the christian/judeaic religions...

It's not as if this one religion called "paganism" has existed for thousands of years.

Representations of evil deities that could be interpreted the same way as "satan" are found in jsut about any religion/mythos ever found. So are a huge variety of other typical deities. What does that have to do with anything?

(Edited by DL-44 on 05-17-2004 02:55)

quote:

---

apparently you have a lot to learn about your own "religion" and about the corrolations between it and christianity (primarily that satanism largely evolved as a "counter-christianity" movement and as such mimicked, but in reverse, the ceremonial aspects of christianity).

---

DL - you're still using the Christian definition of Satanism. Satanism isn't an anti-Christian movement, as Christians would have you believe. It is actually more anti-buddhist, anti-hindu or anti-pagan.

quote:

---

yeah, no shit. "pagan" is simply a generic term for someone who does not follow a version of the christian/judeaic religions...

It's not as if this one religion called "paganism" has existed for thousands of years.

---

No shit, man. That's the point I was trying to make. You can substitute Pagan for the term "Wiccan" you know. Just like an Orthadox Jew is still a Jew.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

(Edited by Sanzen on 05-17-2004 03:28)

How is it anti-buddhist, anti-hindu, anti-pegan, etc?

quote:

---

If someone is not christian is he/she supposed to be concidered satanist?

---

I would not use that term, no. But perhaps the point Sanzen if referring to is that you are either part of the solution or you're not. There is no middle ground when it comes to following Christ, you either follow him or you don't.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

quote:

---

How is it anti-buddhist, anti-hindu, anti-pegan, etc?

---

Someone finally asked. The reason why it's so anti-buddhist/hindu/pagan is that they condemn certain actions of man. Now, Christianity does this too, but not quite as much as the aforementioned practices. There are lots of them, so I'll just list examples: Pagans believe that you should do good to all (IE the Three Fold Rule); Satanists are good to those who 'deserve it' ... IE Friends, family, lovers - LaVey said it as "Love for those who deserve it, not love wasted on ingrates." There are lots of Hindu/Buddhist ones - excess, anti-vanity, etc etc. All these are glorified by Satanism. Like I said earlier, a Christian example - the 7 sins are encouraged (IE If you are a glutton - your pride will make you lose weight). The idea of Karma is a joke to Satanists. My favorite Satanist saying is, "If a man smites you on the cheek - SMASH him on the other." Just think of every thing a priest, or a holy man has ever told you not to do ... and I can pretty much garauntee that a Satanist should do it, not that they do. Most little kids who "dabble" in Satanism do not have the mental capacity to actually practice it, because there's no structure at all - unlike most large religions, there's no real basis of right and wrong; nothing to tell them what to do. The idea of Satanism is all about satisfying the physical, emotional, and sexual (instinctual) needs of man. But a Satanist is also a strong believer in personal freedoms, so gratifying your needs should never interfere with another persons' (unless they express that they want them to).

quote:

---

I would not use that term, no. But perhaps the point Sanzen if referring to is that you are either part of the solution or you're not. There is no middle ground when it comes to following Christ, you either follow him or you don't.

---

Indeed, I was speaking loosely. But Satanism (like Agnosticism, Humanism, Paganism etc etc) is a very blanket term, and can encompass lots and lots of belief systems.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

I'm still not sure whether you personally believe in a supernatural being named "Satan". Do you?


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

So, you think Karma is a joke? Why?

edit: Let me ask you... What do you know about Buddhism or Hinduism?

(Edited by InSiDeR on 05-17-2004 06:18)

quote:

---

I'm still not sure whether you personally believe in a supernatural being named "Satan". Do you?

---

Myself? No. I take Satan as a personification of man's natural instincts, not that a supernatural being actually exists. To me Satan just represents the carnal side of man.

quote:

---

So, you think Karma is a joke? Why?

---

Satanist philosophy would imply that man is in control of his future, his fate and his actions; that there is no supernatural influence on the actions of people. So if someone punches you in the face, karma isn't going to hurt them in the end... you're going to, and hurt them worse than they hurt you.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

What do you find attractive about your philosophy of life? It sounds like a very empty sort of approach to life. Do you find it at all such?


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Satanism is really what you make it; it's as empty as you make it. It's a very primal philosophy. I don't do anything out of the ordinary, I love my friends, my family. I guess the part that I enjoy most about Satanism, is that you don't have to feel bad about doing things that come naturally to humans. People are constantly condemned by society for things that we as humans used to be able to do, and that people do behind closed doors; when they shouldn't be. Satanism just screams the age-old addage, "Live life to it's fullest." We really don't know what lies beyond, so why feel sorry for yourself while you're on Earth?


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

quote:

---

Satanist philosophy would imply that man is in control of his future, his fate and his actions; that there is no supernatural influence on the actions of people. So if someone punches you in the face, karma isn't going to hurt them in the end... you're going to, and hurt them worse than they hurt you.

---

The philosophy of Karma would imply that man is on control of his future, his fate, and his actions as well. While Karma is personified as a supernatural influence, it doesn't make man's decisions, man does. Karma is just cause and effect.

Siddharta Guatama (buddha) once said there is no place on earth where man can escape Karma. You're looking at it wrong. If a man punches you in the face, Karma dictates that the reason of your suffering is because of something you've done, regardless if the puncher creates bad Karma for himself. Hurting them more than they hurt you only results in more suffering, and suffering isn't limited to physical pain.

(edit) Regarding this quote:

quote:

---

Satanism just screams the age-old addage, "Live life to it's fullest."

---

Wouldn't this be more of an Existentialist philosophy of life?

(Edited by InSiDeR on 05-17-2004 07:43)

quote:

---

While Karma is personified as a supernatural influence

---

I think thats the real key thing. I mean really that's just another way to look at it.

quote:

---

Hurting them more than they hurt you only results in more suffering, and suffering isn't limited to physical pain.

---

And then this is the key turning point. This is where the Satanist gets his (as hindus say) "Sense Gratification." The Satanist would gain emotional satisfaction from destroying an adversary, and wouldn't think that there would be an "effect" from this "cause". Assuming that Karma is a chain reaction.

quote:

---

Wouldn't this be more of an Existentialist philosophy of life?

---

Hrm, well satanist philosophy is pretty individualist, I donno if you're referring to the quote being existentialist or Satanism; but Satanism is.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

quote:

---

The Satanist would gain emotional satisfaction from destroying an adversary, and wouldn't think that there would be an "effect" from this "cause".

---

I must apologuise, because I feel that 'gaining satisfaction' from the 'pain' of another human being is a sadistic contribution to the downfall of humanity.

Well, I was assuming that you meant someone had already inflicted pain upon the Satanist. To me thats just someone getting what they deserve.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

Who are you to judge if a man deserves to suffer?

Well, who was he to hit you? He should have been concious of the possible consequences of his actions.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

Who he was to hit you doesn't matter, that's completely irrelevant. If he does something that you disagree with (such as hit you) and you do the exact thing back in retaliation, you've reduced yourself to their level, you're a hypocrite.

I'm beginning to think that we are not going to be able to continue this conversation.

quote:

---

You can substitute Pagan for the term "Wiccan" you know.

---

Yeah,...and......??

I am at a loss as to what your point is. You claim that "paganism" and "satanism" have existed since before christianity, but these terms are used so loosely and apply so vaguely that it is totally meaningless to try and make any sort of point from that.

I understand very well that the term satanism is being tossed around very loosely these days, and is being used by a great variety of people/groups to mean what they want it to mean. But using the term that way doesn't change anything.

Ruski, it took a while to respond to your question about Galileo, Kepler, and Newton being religious but here's some support. I read an excellent book a few years back entitled, The Galileo Connection by Charles Hummel. I don't have the book here and I wanted to quote from it but I found an excerpt on the web about Kepler:

quote:

---

"On November 2, 1630, Kepler rode his horse across the cold Danube River into Regensburg where he stayed with a friend. Soon he came down with a fever that grew steadily worse with occasional delirium. Although several clergymen visited him, they did not offer the Communion he had been denied so many years. Yet Kepler was not bitter. When someone asked him in a lucid moment where he thought his salvation lay, he answered confidently, "Only and alone on the services of Jesus Christ." In Christ the astronomer found his refuge and solace."

From here: http://www.faithalone.org/news/y1989/89feb4.html

---

It's really not unusual at all for scientists to have religious faith and there are many other examples if you look for them.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 05-21-2004 07:13)

Actually, the oldest, unbroken religion recorded is the Aborigine belief in the Dreamtime - it's more than 250,000+ years old...and still going, albeit a bit slower, now.

And Bugs...you never really did answer that which was posed - how is un-belief viewed by the Christians? As following (knowingly or unknowingly) Satan, right?

So...anything that is not Christian, is linked to the Devil, correct? Black and White, Good and Evil. You kind of "dance around the issue", so to speak...by saying either follow Christ or don't follow Christ...so for one that doesn't follow Christ, what then? What does that then mean? As I was a Christian, I was taught that anything that didn't believe in the Christian God, and in Christ, was going to Hell, without exception (unless one changed their belief, that is, to Christianity).

Are you saying that has changed?

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

Peter and John put it like this:

quote:

---

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." --Acts 4:12

---

I don't mean to dance around anything, you either are in Christ or you are not. The end result is as you say, believers will live with Christ forever in the places he has prepared for them in heaven and unbelievers will not share in that.

What exactly did I say that would make you think it did change?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

quote:

---

It's really not unusual at all for scientists to have religious faith and there are many other examples if you look for them.

---

Absolutely. Galileo was certainly a religious man, and he was never out to prove chistianity wrong, or any of that kind of nonsense. He was out to find the truth about our universe. He brought his findings to the church because he was naive enough to think they would want to know, and would be sure to present the truth.

Instead he was persecuted and denounced severely.

Go figure...

Many figures who are made out in hindsight to be 'anti-christian' or 'anti-pope' really were not. Martin Luther desired that cathlics simply be better catholics. Galileo simply wanted better eduacted catholics.

Well

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If someone is not christian is he/she supposed to be concidered satanist?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would not use that term, no. But perhaps the point Sanzen if referring to is that you are either part of the solution or you're not. There is no middle ground when it comes to following Christ, you either follow him or you don't.

---

I just wanted a better explaination from you on this point, that was all. Thanks.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

(Edited by WebShaman on 05-24-2004 19:20)

An interjection... with all the flinging about of the word "pagan", I thought we should all be aware of where the term comes from:

Pagan is from the Latin pagani which means 'farmer'.

The term 'Heathen' derives from the name given to people who lived in the country, "one who lives on the heath".

The reason they have been twisted to refer to someone as non-Christian is due to the fact that during the rising years of Christianity, the people who were the most difficult to convert were those who lived in the rural areas and had little contact with "civilized" people. Their beliefs could not be controlled by the Church because of lack of contact.

That's all I wanted to say - I now return you to your regularly scheduled argu... no... debate!

To believe that the only reason a life is formed, nurtured, educated and sent on its merry way to experience and explore so it can become what its is on this planet for no particular reason seems awfully hard to swallow. To come into existence just to treat humanity nice, believe your a nice person and that you accomplished good things in your lifetime so your co-earthlings and family survivors can think good of you when your six feet under seems pointless in the big picture of things.

Besides, look at the beauty of this planet. The sunset, a beautiful clear day, the snow capped moutains, beatuiful landscapes, all the worlds vacations breathtaking spots. Just to look at the earth from pictures that come from outers space cameras are so breathtaking beautiful against the other planets. Its so majestic and grand and I am in awe of those pictures just like some of you are too,I am sure. How can we think that this earth is not from the handiwork of a GOD. And if there is a possiblity that GOD is responsibe for creating this planet that took millions of years of his handiwork and still is ongoing in process, what more does he have stored for us? I can only wonder.

I feel that Charles Darwin was chosen to write "Origin of the Species". This was no accident. Why did he in his time come to those conclusions and no one else. How gifted we are that he studied and came to these findings. I can only feel that we are going to be presented with many more findings that might seem contrary to scripture, but are not because we in our limited understanding cannot fathom what God really is in all his glory. And I believe creationism and evolution are of one. Because God is one in all. God comes to all in different packages to many people and the ability to see God in all is a gift freely given.

Why are Christians even today still being persecuted for being Christian?

If no one on this planet can reason or prove Christ is not God, why not give Christ a try just in case Jesus is God. The mere fact that Christianity has grown into what it has from the oral teachings of twelve humans who lived 2000 years ago should speak for itself.

(Edited by jade on 05-24-2004 20:34)

I would normally use the term "satanist" for someone who fits the dictionary definition more closely:

quote:

---

Main Entry: sa·tan·ism
Pronunciation: 'sA-t&n-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Usage: often capitalized
1 : innate wickedness : DIABOLISM
2 : obsession with or affinity for evil; specifically : the worship of Satan marked by the travesty of Christian rites
- sa·tan·ist /-ist/ noun, often capitalized

---

I think calling all non-Christians "satanists" would only serve to confuse the issue beyond any sense. The theological specifics about it being "all or nothing" is not widely known and it is not reflected in the common usage of the term "satanist". I hope that clears things up a bit.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

quote:

---

If no one on this planet can reason or prove Christ is not God, why not give Christ a try just in case Jesus is God. The mere fact that Christianity has grown into what it has from the oral teachings of twelve humans who lived 2000 years ago should speak for itself.

---

If you can't prove that Christ IS God, why should I believe in him. And what's the point of believing in something just becuase it COULD be right. What about all the thousands of other religions; why shouldn't you believe in them just because? That's sort of a retarded reason to believe in anything.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

Retarted?

OK Sanzan. Give me some reasons that might make you a believer? How or what would Jesus have to prove to you to have you believe in him as being the son of the living God?

We know he walked on water. There were eye witnesses.

Weknow he cast out evil spirits from possessed persons. There were eye witnesses to this.

We know he brought the dead back to life. There were eye witnesses.

We know he healed the sick from fatal or incurable diseases. There were eye witnesses.

And we know he feed thousands of people from a small basket of bread & fish becausee there were witnesses to this too.

What else does Jesus have to do to prove he is God.

(Edited by jade on 05-24-2004 22:04)

Sanzen, I think that was probably stated in the spirit of Pascal's Wager. I would prefer that people would want to give Christianity a try on its own merits. It it doesn't stand on its own, then it deserves to fail. I firmly believe it does stand on its own and that is one of the reasons I follow it and advocate everyone else doing the same.

[edit] I didn't see jade's reply until after I hit reply. jade makes very valid points and I might just add that raising oneself from the dead was what really got my attention

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 05-24-2004 22:06)

quote:

---

We know he walked on water. There were eye witnesses.

Weknow he cast out evil spirits from possessed persons. There were eye witnesses to this.

We know he brought the dead back to life. There were eye witnesses.

We know he healed the sick from fatal or incurable diseases. There were eye witnesses.

And we know he feed thousands of people from a small basket of bread & fish becausee there were witnesses to this too.

---

We don't know any of this.

We have it written down that these things happened, by a group of people dedicated to making people beleive that Jesus was divine.

Big whoop - I have a superman comic or two with some *really* impressive stuff written in them.

=)

quote:

---

We know he walked on water. There were eye witnesses

---

"Eyewitnesses" from 2000 years ago would highly lack credibility in my opinion.

quote:

---

Weknow he cast out evil spirits from possessed persons. There were eye witnesses to this.

---

Assuming I believe that "evil spirits" exist.

quote:

---

We know he healed the sick from fatal or incurable diseases. There were eye witnesses.

---

There are also people who are eye witness to placebo healing, in 3rd world countries there are plenty of scam doctors that operate on people with deathly illnesses with no medical procedure at all - who just use slight of hand, yet the "patient" claims to feel better.

quote:

---

And we know he feed thousands of people from a small basket of bread & fish becausee there were witnesses to this too.

---

Again, I bet we can trust stories from wine-drunk partybois of Jesus'

quote:

---

What else does Jesus have to do to prove he is God.

---

Jesus has to come down from heaven, tap me on the shoulder, and with his aura and choir of angels singing in the background say to me, "Yea, child, I am Jesus; and I am God." And then he would have to ascend magically in to heaven, to prove to me that Jesus is God.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

quote:

---

Who he was to hit you doesn't matter, that's completely irrelevant. If he does something that you disagree with (such as hit you) and you do the exact thing back in retaliation, you've reduced yourself to their level, you're a hypocrite.

---

Beg to differ.
There is a difference between initiating force and self-defense.

quote:

---

Jesus has to come down from heaven, tap me on the shoulder, and with his aura and choir of angels singing in the background say to me, "Yea, child, I am Jesus; and I am God." And then he would have to ascend magically in to heaven, to prove to me that Jesus is God.

---

I've heard this answer before and I honestly don't think that you would accept this either. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you be more inclined to explain that whoever it was that did all that was probably just a highly advanced alien? This is not as goofy as it sounds because this has been offered as a possible explanation for the resurrection before. In fact, there was an excellent TNG episode that had some alien chick running around impersonating gods different cultures and basically doing a scifi con job on them. She was quite attractive as I recall as well... I really liked that episode

bodhi23, I missed your post up there the last time I replied. Thank you for pointing that out, I recall that as the origin of those words as well. In fact, there were some missionaries that dedicated their lives to reaching those out in the countrysides and the missionaries were often persecuted by the churches in the cities for associating with all those unclean types. It was that same mentality of the church turning in on itself and shutting out those who were "not worthy" of salvation. I've got news for them... umm... actually by now they may have already got the news from a higher source.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

quote:

---

I've heard this answer before and I honestly don't think that you would accept this either. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you be more inclined to explain that whoever it was that did all that was probably just a highly advanced alien? This is not as goofy as it sounds because this has been offered as a possible explanation for the resurrection before. In fact, there was an excellent TNG episode that had some alien chick running around impersonating gods different cultures and basically doing a scifi con job on them. She was quite attractive as I recall as well... I really liked that episode

---

I'd be skeptical, but definately more inclined to believe.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

quote:

---

wouldn't you be more inclined to explain that whoever it was that did all that was probably just a highly advanced alien?

---

And who's to say that's not what "god" is/was?

I personally find it far more beleiveable that aliens visited the earth thousands of years ago and inspired stories of gods. They would not have had to have been 'highly advanced' at that point, simply being at our current technological level would inspire tales of magic and super-human power.

I also don't find it hard to beleive that mankind simply invented these deities to explain what they could not explain. People still do it today...

I agree with DL, for once.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

I think you're proving the point that the alien theory is alive and well And I'm not even saying it is completely out of line to consider it. I have considered it as it relates to the resurrection of Jesus and have found it lacking.

It's not that an alien could not have simulated the death of someone and made it appear that the person came back to life that is problematic in my mind. It's the teachings, theology, and history of the Jews and Christians that has been woven into thousands of years of history that I find very hard to believe was a grand hoax. Virtually all of that the theology found in the bible would have to have been scripted before hand for someone to have manufactured it that way. And then even if you could go with that, you would then have to discuss motivations which just adds another layer of complexity.

To me, that seems far more of a stretch to believe than going with the claims as written.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

You're over thinking it.

Who says it had to be a hoax? Why not a simple misunderstanding? We get a visit from what appears - to our limited understanding - to be some sort of god. Nothing in particular even has to happen....maybe one or two people get zapped, and from that we deduce that god didn't like the way our neighbor behaved, and we make sure that people don't behave that way anymore.

From there the superstition and imagination takes control. Then the realization that control is there to be had takes control.

Then you have a variety of "prophets" along the way, some who want to cash in, some who want to make things better, some who don't even know what they want. Their stories - like the stories of so many other people and things - become twisted and exagerated with each telling, until you have this guy who walked on water, healed the sick, turned water into wine, and eventually even rose from the dead.

Now, I'm certainly not going to go so far as to say "gee bugs, this shows that you shouldn't beleive what you do" but you can't deny that such a premise is commonplace among the civilizations of the world. What was hercules but an outstanding warrior who's legend outgrew his reality? And so on with the countless heros of out mythologies.

To me, it really is that simple. The legend outgrew the man. And the Romans made it a very economical enterprise

We have eyewitnesses of these things that Jesus did? Well we have eyewitnesses of the actions of Zeus, Hercules, Thor, Ra, and countless other deities and heros.

i love how these sorts of debates are so all-encompassing.

one can just jump on any facet of the argument, and go for broke:

• the authenticity of the bible (especially compared to other ancient texts)
• the mutual exclusivity of church/state/science
• the existence of god/God/gods
• the exclusivity of some religions (especially Xianity)
• the existence / deity of Jesus (assuming the accuracy of the bible)
• establishing the difference between the faith and its institutions (that is, which problems are those with a group of believers, and their conduct, and which are points of contention with the basic faith itself)

Bugs, i must commend you again, not only for your solid discussion in defence of 'xianity', but also for maintaining a civil environment for discussion (an environment to which DL also contributed). It's quite interesting to read the thread from the start, and observe how sanzen was almost forced to calm down, argue reasonably, and back up his statements properly.

Highly interesting reading, please continue!

reitsma

(Edited by reitsma on 05-25-2004 07:11)

We don't know any of this.
We have it written down that these things happened, by a group of people dedicated to making people beleive that Jesus was divine.


Then what about lots of other history that happened before Christ and since then, why should you believe it.
So all you have read about history in books, if you weren't there to see it happen, might not really be historical fact. Just made up nonsense by some overzealous writers to make one believe it really happend to further their cause. We know it is fact that a man named Jesus really lived and died on the cross 2000 yrs ago. We have historical proof of that.

And Jesus being an alien. Thats a new one to me.
Where are the historical findings that makes one apt to believe more in aliens beings, since there are no aliens walking around today claiming Jesus/alien was God. And why would an alien claim to be God and have to die for humanity to save itself.

We don't know any of this.
We have it written down that these things happened, by a group of people dedicated to making people beleive that Jesus was divine.


Then what about lots of other history that happened before Christ and since then, why should you believe it.
So all you have read about history in books, if you weren't there to see it happen, might not really be historical fact. Just made up nonsense by some overzealous writers to make one believe it really happend to further their cause. We know it is fact that a man named Jesus really lived and died on the cross 2000 yrs ago. We have historical proof of that.

And Jesus being an alien. Thats a new one to me.
Where are the historical findings that makes one apt to believe more in aliens beings, since there are no aliens walking around today claiming Jesus/alien was God. And why would an alien claim to be God and have to die for humanity to save itself.

Jade

quote:

---

We know it is fact that a man named Jesus really lived and died on the cross 2000 yrs ago. We have historical proof of that.

---

Could you perhaps show me this evidence, please? You state it is a fact. Therefore, there must be solid evidence supporting it. I would very much like to see this historical proof of yours.

and

quote:

---

Then what about lots of other history that happened before Christ and since then, why should you believe it.

---

That is pretty general...could you be a bit more specific, or give examples of what you mean, please?

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

quote:

---

We know it is fact that a man named Jesus really lived and died on the cross 2000 yrs ago. We have historical proof of that.

---

nope we do not...

and even if we did have a solid evidence, it has nothing to do with him being god.

ohh and I have no doubt that person named Joseph was crusified 2000 years ago...no wait, I bet there were at least thousands crucified people by the name Joseph 2000 years ago. And I also bet there were alot of innocent people crucified and burned and beheaded and castrated throughout the history without commiting a single crime.

quote:

---

Then what about lots of other history that happened before Christ and since then, why should you believe it.
So all you have read about history in books, if you weren't there to see it happen, might not really be historical fact. Just made up nonsense by some overzealous writers to make one believe it really happend to further their cause.

---

I beg to differ, but I do not "believe" in it, history is not based on faith. As long there is a physical evidence to support a historical record I have no problem accepting it.
But when you include magical people, dragons, fairies, gods and goddess...it's just not rational anymore.

-----------

Let's also not forget that statue of zeus became one of the seven wonders of the world.

=)

(Edited by Ruski on 05-25-2004 17:05)

Aww, come on Ruski... Don't tell me you dont believe in dragons, wizards and fairies either. hahaha.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

there have actually been a number of books written that deal with historical data regarding christ, the most well-known being 'evidence that demands a verdict' by josh mcdowell (a guy who set out to prove christ didn't exist and changed his mind). of course, no matter what evidence is presented there will be someone else who doesn't agree and writes another book, then someone who writes a book to disprove that book, etc.

one thing i think people forget is that it takes faith to believe in either side.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

quote:

---

So all you have read about history in books, if you weren't there to see it happen, might not really be historical fact.

---

Bingo. Now you're getting the picture!

What you have to do is find credible sources. That is difficult. When you have multiple unrelated sources saying the same thing, you can be fairly sure you've got the right info.
History is like a giant puzzle, with no picutre to go by. There is very little in the way of absolute fact.

Why do I beleive a great many of the things I've learned about world history, but not the writings about god?

A variety of reasons

1) multiple sources of information, including physical archeological findings, writings from a variety of sources, etc

2) most writings about god/jesus are pushing an agenda. they are very biased and very apt to stretch the truth to get their message across.

3) I don't base life on the idea that what I know of history is absolute fact and that if I don't behve according to what is written I'll go to hell.

Ruski - I disagree. There is most certainly a degree of "faith" when dealing with history. But again, I'm not staking my soul on that faith. I'm simply accepting what is reasonably well supported by evidence, and taking it with the acceptance that it could be wrong, and that as more is learned about a subject, my understanding of history will liekly change.

As far as Jesus having been an alein, no - I don't buy that. I beleive very much that Jesus lived, and was a man. There is much evidence to support this. There is no real evidence to support any of the legends that grew around him. What I referred to was the possibility of the origin of "god" having been a result of alien visitation. I don't put this out as my theory of what happened, but simply as something that could have potentially happened, and something I'd be more apt to beleive than biblical accounts of god, were I to have to choose between the two ideas.

(Edited by DL-44 on 05-25-2004 18:26)

^Bingo! Well said, DL!

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

To be more likely to believe in alien abductions than Christ's ressurection. Thats interesting to believe in the legends of aliens and not the legend of Christ 500 years from now.

And what would be the alien agenda? For us to know they exist. What would be their purpose, you figure. In the billions of years of life on the planet where is the proof aliens existed. Whereas you have documents, gospels & writings on the ministry of Jesus Christ when he walked the planet. I wonder why your more apt to go against the teachings of a very profound unique person and believe in ETs.

You're not listening.

I beleive in Jesus. I just don't beleive he is what religion has turned him into.

I also said nothing about alien abductuions, or about beleiving any legends about aliens.

No idea what you mean about "500 years from now".

I also said very clearly that there need not have been any aganda, if the alien scenario happened to be true. Their mere presence could easily spawn an unlimited expanse of imaginative and superstitious speculation in the primitive human mind.

I have very little problem with the teachings of Jesus. I have huge problems with the teachings of the human institutions that twist his teachings to further their own aganda.

Once again - I do not dispute the existence of Jesus. I have very often supported the fact that Jesus did exist. But his existence is a far cry from what the catholic church decided 300 years later he was.

I also never said that I believe that aliens even exist. But I do find that more probable than the idea of god.

quote:

---

To be more likely to believe in alien abductions than Christ's ressurection

---

Anyone who doesn't believe aliens exist, to me is someone completely out of touch with reality. Whether they abduct people or not is a different story altogether. That statement angered me so.

quote:

---

In the billions of years of life on the planet where is the proof aliens existed.

---

The difference is, any tangible evidence of aliens would be quickly COVERED UP instead of 'documented' and released to the public. Whereas any "evidence" of jesus christ is quickly exploited and blown up by the media. There is absolutely NO difference in the assertion of UFO sightings/abductions and that of Jesus.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

I saw the program on history channel couple of weeks ago, about how people tried to discover an inteligent life form somewhere in the universe.
They used a bunch of methods especially something to do with detecting radio or whatever kind of waves that might be produced by whatever means possible...

after many years of research and such, they calculated the ratio of possibility and it was so low, that pretty much you could tell there is almost no possibility...

The mistake we, as humans, make is to assume that the only possibility of another intelligent lifeform would be one that is carbon based, or of similar molecular composition. We may lack the technology to even be able to detect, see, or comprehend them... very much less communicate. And anyways, it could be nearly impossible to find any kind of wave, if it's faint enough, or if it's garbled up by the background radiation in the universe; or in reality the simple reason that we don't know what we're looking for, scientists can only survey certain parts of the sky - in limited frequencies and distances. There are too many factors to explain why it would be impossible for us to detect life elsewhere when we can't even imagine how much of a universe there actually is. To me, and this is honestly just my opinion - but one based on my limited quantum physics research and knowledge - it is naive to assume that we're the only intelligent life form in the universe, when we're only one planet in one galaxy that is astonishingly similar to other known galaxies (from what other information we can gather). The things that make up these galaxies would be similar to ours, to assume that nothing could evolve like us (or even evolve in a different manner) is just rediculous.

What I dont get is how this thread got to this topic, but it's interesting nonetheless.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

quote:

---

Anyone who doesn't believe aliens exist, to me is someone completely out of touch with reality. Whether they abduct people or not is a different story altogether. That statement angered me so.

---

Well, I could say whoever doesn't believe Jesus was God, is completely out of touch with reality. Right?

Jesus indeed was the greatest ET that ever lived if you really think about it. God coming down and making himself human.

quote:

---

The difference is, any tangible evidence of aliens would be quickly COVERED UP instead of 'documented' and released to the public. Whereas any "evidence" of jesus christ is quickly exploited and blown up by the media. There is absolutely NO difference in the assertion of UFO sightings/abductions and that of Jesus.

---

Coverup? This doesn't make sense Sanzen. There are billions of people on this planet and they do not have the technology to cover up an ET or spacecrafts if aliens chose to manifest themselves to random people. This is the age of video cameras and digital cameras. Where are the aliens pics.

Haha, they are everywhere Jade. Ever heard of Roswell?


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

Roswell...

DL... the point is, UFO/Alien sightings/crashings are about as credible as the accounts of Jesus Christ.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

OK DL-44. Maybe I will give it some thought if I see a video pic of an alien walking on water and at least one eyewitness.

(Edited by jade on 05-26-2004 21:20)

Do you have a "video pic" of jesus walking across water, and an eyewitness you can talk to?


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

Sanzen, the debate used to be about whether the New Testament documents were well supported historically. It is generally agreed that they are very well supported so now the debate has shifted to whether or not what is claimed in them actually happened. That is an ongoing debate and in all probability will continue for long after you and I are worm food.

I remember the late Carl Sagan stating that there was not a shred of physical evidence for the existence of extraterrestial life visiting this planet. I neither assume aliens exist nor do I assume they don't. When it comes to this question, I am agnostic. I am waiting for the evidence. I'll be fine either way it turns out.

I disagree that the evidence for aliens and the accounts in the New Testament are on the same level. I understand they are both disputed but I think it's rather glib to view them the same.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Sazen,

Well, of course not. I hope you do know the technology was not advanced in the times of Jesus. Too bad he didn't chose the 20th century to make an appearance then we wouldn't be debating about it now, would we. But you never know he might be here already just in hiding till its time for the second coming debut. But there were eyewitnesses when he walked on water and they wrote about it in the gospels and millions do believe it.

(Edited by jade on 05-26-2004 21:57)

jade, if he came today we would most certainly be having the debate. The gospels tell us that even many of the people who witnessed his miracles didn't believe him! And if you really believed Christ was who he claimed to be, do think you would have him crucified?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

quote:

---

OK DL-44. Maybe I will give it some thought if I see a video pic of an alien walking on water and at least one eyewitness.

---

I can't even fathom where this statement comes from, or why it's directed at me?

And BTW, if you want such a video, I'm sure it can be produced rather easily.

As to whether we would be debating anything if jesus were to be here today instead of 2000 years ago? You're right - we wouldn't. Why? Because the stories surrounding him would be much easier to disprove as simple gossip and legend if he were here today, and we would probably never even hear of him.

(Edited by DL-44 on 05-26-2004 22:35)

No. I wouldn't have him crucified. What kind of question is that? I would of wanted to be Simeon, who helped him carry his cross. Yes, your right, there would be unbelievers if he walked the planet today. But today with the technology we have Jesus would be more accessable to the masses and his miracles would be on a grander scale. And lets not rule out that this might be his intention in the very near future. And I await his coming.

(Edited by jade on 05-26-2004 22:43)

jade, do you live your life in a perpetual "defense mode"? I was not saying YOU would have him crucified. I was making the point that the men who did have him crucified never would have done so if they truly believed he was the Son of God. Some of the men who did have him brought up on charges had probably witnessed some of his miracles. That was all I was trying to say.

DL,

quote:

---

Because the stories surrounding him would be much easier to disprove as simple gossip and legend...

---

Do I detect a hint of pre-judgement there? I'm pretty sure you're not saying you *know* they are made up.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

As I've said before, I accept as fact that there is no god and that the legends of Jesus are nothing more than the same type of exagerations that have constantly surrounded our mythological figures.

Now, to say that I accept it as fact is not to say that I present it to you to as fact.

It's a personal thing. As far as I am concerned, I know it. But I would not push that acceptance on others.

I have also said, and maintain now, that I know there is no god, as surely as any christian knows there is one.

=)

quote:

---

It's a personal thing. As far as I am concerned, I know it. But I would not push that acceptance on others.

---

you have my utmost respect if this is indeed true
this is, IMHO, the correct Christian attitude
sad to say, most "Christians" don't get it

by the way, this talk about walking on water reminds me of a poem i wrote a couple of years ago.

(known)

i walked on water today
no great miracle
just one of those things people can't explain
or else choose to ignore
but nobody saw
like a tree in the forest
falling on deaf ears
can you hear me?

i fell from the sky and shed my wings
became a fool with nothing to lose
nothing more than a vision
feeding on the apple of my eye
can you see me?

the pathway is covered with stones
bruised heels ache
like nail-scarred hands slapping the thighs
or reaching out to touch you
can you feel me?

wounded spirits walk alone through quicksand
yet never lonely

outcydr, I'm digesting your poem. I can't get any feedback into words at the moment but thanks very much for sharing that.

DL-44, I honestly have never heard you put your position like that before. I have no doubt you have told us but I had missed it. I completely understand it and am very pleased that you put it so succinctly and honestly. I think if you were to substitute all the "no god" stuff with "God" stuff, I could almost use it as a template for my own position

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

jamie - brilliantly put.

Out of curiosity - if you look at your beliefs, and it's consequences for life/death/beyond, and you look at the basic Xian belief, and it's consequences for life/death/beyond, could you agree that we have far greater impetus for broadcasting our belief set to others? Additionally, do you feel that xians have no place 'evangelising' to you, or is you opinion on their right to do this purely dependent on their technique (i.e. ramming down your throat vs intellectual debate)?

Jade - i can't help but feel that you seem to be missing the point of some of these posts at times, or at least taking them as far more hostile than they were intended. Pardon my rudeness, but it could be beneficial to the conversations here if you were to read each post a few times over before replying, and perhaps read your own reply a couple of times over before posting it. This is just a suggestion, of course - it's an open forum, and you're welcome to contribute as you see fit.

reitsma

To answer you, WebShaman,

quote:

---

Well, White hawk, what do you believe? You don't believe in God, and you don't accept Evolution...

Then how do you explain how things became as they now are?

---

Perhaps we were all produced in a massive lab used during the exodus from Mars. The Garden of Eden was, in fact, comparable to an incubation chamber. Once the first humans started to breed, they were released onto the freshly terra-formed planet Earth (cast out of the comfortable and controlled conditions of the Eden lab).

Or perhaps not...

Anyway, to answer your second question - the reason why things are the way they are now is all the fault of the politicians and religious leaders. What that has to do with what I believe in though, I really don't know.

_______________________________

Seek not truth with deceitful intent...
...for that way lies the seed of dissent.
_______________________________

Hardly informative, and as answer...well, so be it. I suppose that many might "bail out" in response to such a question. In all honesty, I had hoped that you would have done your honest best to answer.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

I certainly understand that when a person truly beleives that someone is going to hell, they have a good reason - and perhaps even an obligation - to share their viewpoint with them.

But unfortunately a great majority of christians seem to take the telemarketer approach, and politely telling them that you're not interested doesn't work - you have to get to the point of hanging up on them or arguing like an idiot.

Of course I've found that the same types of tricks that make telemarketers stop calling tend to stop people from evangelizing as well (you now...start talking dirty to them, inform them of your plans to board the 'mother ship' when it arrives and invite them to be your soulmate on the ultimate voyage, hail the almighty satan [aka your neighbor's pug 'sparky']....that kind of thing )

I'm always up for a good debate, even an argument, about such issues. But too often they end up going down a very shallow route that just doesn't seem to suit the subject matter (ie 'why don't you just give jesus a try'...like jesus is some new fad diet pill....).

I hate telemarketers...

imo evangelization is an area the church (using "church" as a generic word for western christianity) fails at pretty miserably. there are instances where a person hears a hellfire and damnation sermon at just the right time and commits their life to christ, and there also individuals i've heard that i believe are meant to be speaking messages like this (i remember seeing one speaker in particular where people literally ran to the altar, non-christian and christian alike). at the same time i don't think the majority of conversions happen that way, most people when "told" what they need to be doing or not be doing react rather negatively.

for me personally the people that i've had the biggest effect on are those that i see every day at work or wherever, those that have a chance to see me in my daily life and notice that i do live my life differently than most people. once a trust and respect has been established you start earning the right to speak into someone else's life and it's not preaching anymore, it's caring about what they're going thru and speaking as a concerned friend. God has given me some amazing opportunities to share what He's done in my life thru those situations and really affect people in a positive way.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Evangelism is a mutant step-child of "church" - you know as well as I that the two can't truly be compared...


Fig - what you say is true of most Christians I run across these days. Proselytization is not as widely practiced as it once was.

However, what DL said is still valid. There are several groups of Christians who are all about making sure the world knows that their brand of Christianity is "The One and Only" and are not above the persisitence it takes to annoy the hell out of otherwise uncommitted folk for the glorified purpose of adding to their ranks.

I prefer the strong, silent type myself! (it's much more convincing!)

quote:

---

However, what DL said is still valid. There are several groups of Christians who are all about making sure the world knows that their brand of Christianity is "The One and Only" and are not above the persisitence it takes to annoy the hell out of otherwise uncommitted folk for the glorified purpose of adding to their ranks.

I prefer the strong, silent type myself! (it's much more convincing!)

---

Bodhi,

You have to think that if the evangelizers like, Peter, Paul, Matt, Mark, John, etc and the millions of Christians that followed kept silent and to themselves Chrisitianity would not be what it is today. Its because they opened their mouths and very not afraid to speak the truth of Jesus Christ even in the face of adversity that Christianity today is the largest denomiation in the world. In the face of many obstacles in the current state of the world today, the ministry of Jesus gives hope to many because someone shares and doesn't keep silent. In the name of Christianity, even if non-Christians whine about proselyters, followers will always be their brother's keeper, even if they non-believers don't want a keeper. And here in the US, studies show that in numbers, more people are converting to Christianity that any other religion.

bodhi, what do you mean about evangelism not being compared to church? I want to make sure I understand what you're saying before I respond to what I think you said.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

jade - this is true, it IS important to 'preach' the message, but the old cliche still rings true: Actions speak louder than words.
If a church organisation spreads the news of God's perfect justice, and Jesus' perfect love, yet shelters its priests, who have abused children, from the law, which message do you think will speak louder?

A saying I once heard, which seems to make sense to me, is that 'you may be the only bible those around you get to read'.

reitsma

the only time you'll ever hear me quote a saint:

quote:

---

Preach the gospel at all times. Use words when necessary. - St. Francis of Assisi

---

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

If only the church would spend less effort making golden idols...er, I mean...statues, of Francis, and heed his words and actions more, it would be a much better organization.

^Hear, hear! Amen to that, DL.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

i don't think anyone here would argue that. i certainly wouldn't.

there's only so much i can do about what a church does tho, all i can do is hopefully affect those that i come into direct contact with. whether that includes you guys i'm not quite sure yet

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Ok - additional clarification:
Evangelism in terms of the loud, fundamentalist preachers who insist that they can save your soul for the meager cost of, let's say, your entire savings sent to them in the form of a cashiers check made out to them personally?

It's not the spreading of the "Word" that I have problems with, it's the methods that some people use to do it.

My comment was a little tongue in cheek, I admit.

quote:

---

Its because they opened their mouths and very not afraid to speak the truth of Jesus Christ even in the face of adversity that Christianity today is the largest denomiation in the world.

---

That, and a large part the result of the threat of death during the Inquisition...
(sorry, is that cynical?)

quote:

---

It's not the spreading of the "Word" that I have problems with, it's the methods that some people use to do it.

---

The main goal is that it be effective. The number of different ways we should evangelize is only limited by the number of different ways people require to be evagelized. The "church" has been far too inflexible on how to spread the word since its inception if you ask me.

Too many have confused the "church" with Xianity. Christ did not come to establish an earthly kingdom, he came to call all humans back into a relationship with Himself and the Father. The body of Christ is the church but that body can take many different forms just as there are many different parts of the human body.

quote:

---

That, and a large part the result of the threat of death during the Inquisition... (sorry, is that cynical?)

---

I'll assume it is your goal to be accurate. What has brought the Xian faith to this day is what has happened. In the last 2000 years many things have been done in the name of Christ that have been atrocities. But at the same time far more things have been done in His name that have been angelic. All that matters is that we do what is right with what we've been given, we don't have any control over anything else so we leave that to God.

Thanks for clarifying, bodhi23. It's a good thing I waited to hear your response before commenting because I thought I was going to have to go into a long diatribe about how there is no Xianity without evangelism.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

quote:

---

If only the church would spend less effort making golden idols...er, I mean...statues, of Francis, and heed his words and actions more, it would be a much better organization.

---

DL, You still have a misconception of what God refers to as "idols." The golden calf in Exodus has symbolic meaning. Anything or person that takes you away from God is an idol. Statues of saints and Mary or Jesus reflect you to think of good the person did. To emulate or strive for goodness of a noteworthy person is the aim. What about the Lincoln memorial or State of Liberty? What about wooden crosses people wear around their necks to symoblize they are Chrisitan. Is this idolotry? In you way of thinking, isn't this idol worship? People you hold dear to you probably are in photo frames in your office or at home. Isn't this idol worship also.

I do happen to know many people who try to live by the famous words St. Francis on a daily basis.
Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
Where there is injury, pardon;
Where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is dispair, hope;
Where there is darkness, light;
And where there is sadness, joy.
O Divine Master, grant that I may not so
much seek to be consoled, as to console; to
be understood, as to understand; to be loved,
as to love. For it is in giving that we receive,
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned, and
it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

quote:

---

a church organisation spreads the news of God's perfect justice, and Jesus' perfect love, yet shelters its priests, who have abused children, from the law, which message do you think will speak louder?

---

Yes. Blame the whole faithful on the actions of a few.
Thats like saying blame all the German people and they should be accountable for the ALL the actions & decisions of Hitler and his henchmen.
All demoniations have abuses. Most don't come to light in the news, because they are small fry compared to the CC. Being that we are the most hated and resented faith besides Islam, we get picked on most. And it makes good prime time news. Protestants & non-christians preachers abuse children too. When have you heard a Baptist preacher(s) on prime time news for abusing children. Just about never. Its local news. But it certaintly does happen.

Double post.

(Edited by jade on 05-29-2004 01:21)

quote:

---

Yes. Blame the whole faithful on the actions of a few.

---

If we were only talking about the "few", and if people like you weren't constantly trying to make excuses for such horrendous abuses, then you might have a point.

quote:

---

All demoniations have abuses. Most don't come to light in the news, because they are small fry compared to the CC

---

Any large group of people has it's abusive and predatory members. What's important is what kind of safegaurds are put in place, and how such things are dealt with once they are discovered. Such abuses in the catholic church have been exposed for a *very* long time - several decades now. And yet, it's only in the last couple of years that the publicity is widespread. So you can take that argument and....well, I won't spell it out.

quote:

---

When have you heard a Baptist preacher(s) on prime time news for abusing children. Just about never. Its local news. But it certaintly does happen.

---

One of the main reasons you don't hear about it as often is simply because it doesn't happen as often.
One of the main reasons it is so prevalent in the catholic preisthood is the position of absolute power that is associated with a priest. People are taught to look at a priest as somehow better than human.

You also have the whole celibacy thing, which is 100% counter to human instinct, and is simply *begging* for trouble.

A man who is not "allowed" to have sex, left alone in positions of strong authority with young children who are by the nature of their religion and position disinclined to tell about their abuses.

And people are somehow shocked when things come to light....

quote:

---

Protestants & non-christians preachers abuse children too. When have you heard a Baptist preacher(s) on prime time news for abusing children. Just about never. Its local news. But it certaintly does happen.

---

It most certainly does happen. And if the local churches cover it up and keep the abusers in a place of leadership they deserve every bit as much of the scorn the RC has received.

I just heard about a case in a local parish here in California where one of its priests was found guilty of molesting some children. The local congregation was divided over whether or not they were going to welcome him back to his former job once he did his time and counseling. I think 10% of the congregation wouldn't have it and are going to leave the church because the other 90% want him back as a priest

The man deserves forgiveness and healing and the church is the right place to receive it but to put him back in a position of leadership? There are some serious problems with the moral education in that congregation if you ask me. I think this is somehow prevalent in the RC at large as well. This man should never be allowed to hold a position of leadership in the church ever again after such a breach of trust. There is a big difference between forgiveness and healing on the one hand and having leaders that are not "above reproach" as the Bible requires.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

DL
Well, you know to become a RC priest men must take a vow of celibacy. No one is twisting the arms of these men to accept the rules of the priesthood. Some can't follow their commitment and some can. Priest do not have magic powder on them that makes them resist tempations. They are HUMAN like you and me. When you marry you make a vow to remain true to your spouse too. Where we commit our lives to a person, they commit their lives to Jesus Christ as spouse like nuns do. They try hard not to break their vows, like married persons do. Statistics are that more married persons commit adultery once or more in their lifetimes. To think the religious need to have sexual intimacy with other persons to exist in this world means your not seeing the whole picture. Many other persons besides the religious make a decision to be celibate. The vow of celibacy issue in the preisthood is not the problem. These priest commited these horrible crimes because they were and maybe still are bad people. Its the inner rot that exist in the priest, who has no business being in the priesthood maybe in the first place. No. Their should of never been a cover up. Or these priest should not have access to the ministry that involves children.

Since the scandal, the RC diocese mandates all teachers who are involved in religious education must take a required course to better serve for the protection of children and our protection as well. In the films we have watched, which are very hard & depressing to view, children are being interviewed. School teachers, parents, friends fo the parents, realtives, and even siblings are guilty of sexual abuse also. So the abusers cover a wide range of our society. In one story an eleven year old student, (girl) was being abused by her teacher (woman). Even women are abusers. The statistics are sexual abuse happens more in the inner families. I, myself was abused by a male teacher in high school. I was just too innocent and naive at the time to complain. It wasn't real bad, but all the same, scary. I would try to skip his class when I could. I know these children become emotionally handicapped, and my heart goes out to them.
In the scandal of the church, just like people have the desire to purify themselves from sin and make them better persons, so does the church have the desire to purge itself from the evil of sin and make her a more holy instituiton to better serve the faithful. She, the church which is made up of many people worldwide may have been wounded with scandal, but she/we are healing and will become a better church for it.

quote:

---

Priest do not have magic powder on them that makes them resist tempations. They are HUMAN like you and me.

---

That's the point I am making Jade. They are only human, and yet they are given a position with more-than-human expectations. They are also given a status that allows them to very easily abuse people's trust - either in small simple ways, or in the terrible, terrible ways we're talking about here.

It's just a bad setup - period.

quote:

---

Even women are abusers

---

Well of course....

quote:

---

The statistics are sexual abuse happens more in the inner families.

---

And that has nothing at all to do with this subject. I understand your point, of course, but to include that info really just attempts to trivialize the problem at hand.

quote:

---

I, myself was abused by a male teacher in high school. I was just too innocent and naive at the time to complain. It wasn't real bad, but all the same, scary. I would try to skip his class when I could.

---

I am truly sorry, and I hope that when you say "it wasn't real bad", that means it didn't go as far as the cases we're discussing...
As far as being too naive to to complain - that's exactly the problem. People with authority - teachers, priests, cops, parents, etc - are in a position where people are either afraid to report, or don't think they even have a right to.

quote:

---

o does the church have the desire to purge itself from the evil of sin and make her a more holy instituiton to better serve the faithful.

---

Well, they better start proving that.

quote:

---

many people worldwide may have been wounded with scandal, but she/we are healing and will become a better church for it.

---

I don't know what to make of that. Part of me says that's just a very naive statement, part of me says that is really twisted and just a further attempt to trivialize and sweap under the carpet the horrible things that have happened, and that have been happening for a very long time...

(Edited by DL-44 on 05-29-2004 23:40)

There we go....

Christianity --> Trust --> Abuse --> Pain

hahaha. Joking.

But, as Fox Mulder would say "Trust No one,' and look how he turned out: Nine seasons on one of the most famous TV shows of all time.


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

(Edited by Sanzen on 05-30-2004 06:05)

[i]

quote:

---

As far as being too naive to to complain - that's exactly the problem. People with authority - teachers, priests, cops, parents, etc - are in a position where people are either afraid to report, or don't think they even have a right to.

---

This is true. I was afraid. But one thing you have to consider is "shame". I felt shame. Victims feel this even though they are innocent and this keeps them from saying anything. You only think of yourself and not other future victims I guess unitl you come to terms with the abuse or mature.

(Edited by jade on 06-01-2004 21:04)

jade - i think you did a good job of missing my point there.

I was simply using an example to show you that actions speak louder than words. Some actions (such as abuse) can drown out a century of well chosen words. Thankfully, many actions help to support those words too.
It may not be fair, it may not be accurate, but yes, people can blame the whole faithful on the actions of a few. In fact, a person could shun the whole idea of Christianity simply because of your actions. Of course, they could also embrace it. My point was simply to emphasise the importance of remembering this.

reitsma

quote:

---

This is true. I was afraid. But one thing you have to consider is "shame". I felt shame. Victims feel this even though they are innocent and this keeps them from saying anything. You only think of yourself and not other future victims I guess unitl you come to terms with the abuse or mature.

---

Yes. Shame is certainly a huge result of abuse, of any kind. And one more thing that makes the actions of these many priests and their many protectors that much worse.

It seems wrong that one should feel shame for the sufferance of abuse at the hands of those trusted and held in high regard - and yet this is the lasting legacy of the abuser. Hatred and anger are no healthier either, but also symptoms of victimisation.

And why do people suffer this? Worse yet, why do those higher up in the church ignore (nay - cover up) such goings-on?

Because the faith of the people is not in God, or in Christ - it is faith in the so-called representatives of the faith. They represent the faith, therefore they are unimpeachable.

I lived in Ireland for a few years. In my last year there was a sudden upsurge in the number of victims breaking their silence - spurred by a change in public view, no doubt. So many of them had actually been told to keep their mouths shut by family, neighbours, or even other priests!

Things are changing, but slowly still. My heart goes out to anyone who has had to suffer grievous abuse of any kind - especially those who hold their silence still.

_______________________________

Seek not truth with deceitful intent...
...for that way lies the seed of dissent.
_______________________________

Oh yeah - I have a video of myself walking on water.

...or at least, I did...

I accidentally erased it.

I do have several witnesses who will swear blind to it, though, and I am writing a 100,000 word book on the incident (including a little on my life).

I have been healing people with my hands, and I can turn water into Best Bitter (with a couple of weeks work). I've also turned a pile of potatoes into a vat of chips.

I have to say though: I do have my doubters....

_______________________________

Seek not truth with deceitful intent...
...for that way lies the seed of dissent.
_______________________________

Do you have any witnesses willing to die for their testimony, White Hawk? If so, how many? And what are the odds that not one of them will break down and admit it was all a hoax?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Again you narrow the options down to 'either it was real, or it was a hoax'.

Jesus not being the son of god does not mean it was a hoax. It is a very simple matter of legends outgrowing the man, which you cannot deny was an extremely common thing at that time and before, and continues to be in the modern world, even.

You also had people who were fighting for a lot more than just the simple ideas of whether or not a person had performed miracles. There was much more to their movement than just jesus and god. Jesus and god made very convenient focal points for a great deal of more relevant underlying issues (jewish corrupstion, roman oppression, etc...).

Is there anyone since the time of Jesus who has proclaimed to be God or has any one sect claimed their leader, preacher, etc is God or the son of the living God?

I know there are persons who claim to have the direct phone line to God like Oral Roberts, etc, but I don't recollect anyone claiming to be the creator of all things since then or currently. Even Jesus always referred to himself as the "Son of Man" in the gospels. He never said I am God. Neither did the God of Moses. The God of OT referred is "I Am Who Is" by God.

When it was revealed, it was to the followers of Jesus by the holy spirit, which Jesus confirmed as truth to his apostles. When Jesus asked Peter, "Who do you say that I am?" Peter says, "Your are the Christ, the son of the living God. And Jesus says, "What you say is true. I have not revealed this to you. Tthis has been revealed to you by my father in heaven." And then Jesus tells the other apostles that what Peter says is truth. But for his followers not to reveal this to anyone yet.

For someone to say that they are God, is really very serious blasphemy. And for someone to claim that a person they know is God is serious blasphemy. I think the apostles, who where abiding Jews who followed their laws knew too the seriousness of proclaiming false teaching. It would mean their final damnation according to their teachings as Jews and facing possible death in preaching against their mosaic laws.

I believe God has not left us orphans for the last 2000 years. And the ministry of Jesus Christ has not been a hoax for all those years either. When Christians put their COMPLETE trust in Jesus, they see a metamorphis happen within themselves. Because they die to self and live for others, no major obstacle, hardship or worry is seen as before. Jesus for us calms the wandering spirit & the soul. This is why the apostles felt compelled to spread the ministry of Jesus even in the face of death, so they could preach Jesus simple message. "Love one another as I have loved you." How easy and yet so hard for some.

Yes. The Reverend Sun Myung Moon claims to be the Messiah. There have been many who claimed this before Jesus Christ and there have been many since. Another example that comes to mind are many of the Roman emperors who not only claimed godhood but made it the law that they be worshipped as such.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

DL-44: Jade makes a good point there.

In some senses, it is as narrow as those two choices. The things that Jesus has said, if any of them are true, leave the reader deciding that he either was a lunatic, or is the son of God.

I suppose another possibility could be that he was a 'good person', and then some crazy people decided to put totally fabricated words in his mouth, and describe totally false occurrences, but the amount of research they would have had to of done would have been unbelievable, as many of Jesus' teachings, actions, and even the way he was born and died fulfil the writings of the old testament.

reitsma

Bugimus,

I can introduce you to people who would swear on their lives that they know someone who definitely saw me turn a pile of spuds into a pile of chips.

Will that do ya'?

______________________

Onwards & Upwards..?
______________________

You miss the point, reitsma.

I've expanded on this a bit further in another post....possibly earlier in this thread even.

The point is, it doesn't have to be the way you present it. It doesn't ahve to be that someone concocted some scheme. It doesn't have to be an elaborate setup. Much of the writing about jesus came later, many of the determinations about whether he was actually divine came later.

*many* people in that place and time (that general time...) were perceived as possibly being the messiah, many were promoted as such, promoted themselves as such, were seen as having performed some miracle or other. (and yes, Jade, *many* have since).

Stories evolve. Things happen...and through the telling grow far beyond the actual events, and very often without any real intent by the teller to falsify it. That is, at a very *basic* level, the way things work in the world - period.

Does that mean that what you beleive about jesus is definately not true? Of course not. But it is certainly enough for me (especially when combined with a complete lack of substantiating evidence, or recurrent events since that time....).

Etc....

Was Hercules a hoax? Was King Arthur a hoax? Did people sit up saying "yeah, we'll fool them! Write this story about this guy did such and such...we'll fool everybody!?

Of course not. These are figures that were quite probably based on real people. Real people who could not have done the things they were purported to have done. The stories around them were embellished to the point of being, at best, incredulous. And so they become "myth" and "legend".

I very truly see *no* difference between these stories - and the very many like them from cultures all over the world - and the stories of Jesus. It's not something I see for the sake of trashing christianity, as some people would seem to like to think.

(Edited by DL-44 on 06-03-2004 03:19)

Undoubtedly Jesus was a good person, but there probably wasn't a "scheme." Messiahs at the time were a dime a dozen What I think is interesting is that Jesus had staying power .. . . why? Most of the gospels, especially the accepted ones (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) have been altered and retranslated, so much so that they probably would no longer be recognizable to the authors. At this point in time, what is left of them is primarily supposition. And the Nag Hammadi gospels, the gnostic gospels, are very different from the basic four. The early Christian church seems to have decided which ones should be considered scripture based on the opinions of only a very few people. (I believe to date that there are 56 different gospels, and some are older that MML&J.)

I wil admit I am not a Christian; I take a broader view of spirit. Nearly every religion has real value. But I am definitely not an atheist. And the one thing that I consider to be most intriguing about Christianity is that historically, after a "messiah" dies, his following dies with him. Not so with Christianity . . . after Jesus died, not only did his followers continue to preach, but most of them were martyred for their trouble. Would people be willing to die for someone that they didn't continue to believe in? Could that many of his disciples be that gullible? And they personally knew him; he wasn't just an object of myth and legend. And their martyrdoms were not conjecture . . .many were reported by nonChristian historians of the time, such as Josephus. He must have had a tremendous effect on them. And that IS different.

Dragonlady

that was a very well written post, dragonlady. some great points.


and jamie - i'm sorry if i missed the point there.

i suppose my closing paragraph was supposed to awknowledge your point of view, but missed the mark a little - i guess your stance is that these people simply added bits and bits and bits until a guy who said and did some great things and was killed, became the son of God; and it wasn't any great conspiracy to create this deity incarnate.

so, have you given any thought to which bits were true, and which bits were simply added for dramatic effect? do you think he rose from the dead? or was he simply unconscious at the time? or was that whole thing a bit of an embellishment?
I'm just curious - of course, you're more than entitled to say that you don't care for those sorts of details.

reitsma

I very much agree with DL-44 here. Human history is full of such "legend and Myth" stuff - my forefathers beliefs are largely a collection of such. So are a lot of other examples.

Since we know that the bible was actually put together ~300 years after the death of Jesus (and as such, there was absolutely no-one living, that could atest as eye-witness), all accounts would rely on written word and hearsay. This of course only applies to the New Testament, as the Old Testament is actually older than Jesus.

So let us consider the story of Jonah and the Whale. Aside from the fact that nothing could survive a day inside of a whale's Stomach (let us assume here that God somehow "protected" Jonas against the acid, and provided him with air, yes?), it is impossible for a whale to actually swallow a human. It has been proven (through autopsy) that a human cannot physically pass through the throat of a whale (the throat is too small). So, unless God had then "magically" transported Jonah into the Whales stomach, and then later again transported Jonah out, one has to take this as a legend gone wild.

I actually love this story, because anyone literally believing in the Bible stumbles and falls over this part. It normally evokes cries of "Blastphemy!", "You'll burn in Hell!" and other sort of exclamations amongst fanatic believers. Just this part normally sends the Jehovah's Witnesses packing...hehe. Strangely, they don't come visiting anymore.

Also, there is Judas (one of the Apostles - he sure didn't get his side of the story into the New Testament. I wonder why?) Now, if Jesus really did do all these miracles, then why didn't Judas believe that Jesus was the "Son of God"? Surely Judas would not have betrayed the actual Son of God...why would anyone, who had actually witnessed, with their own eyes, the "miracles" that Jesus is supposed to have brought about? In fact, Jesus saw, that Judas didn't believe (and would betray him), according to the New Testament. Of course, it doesn't go into great detail on this - one would like to have an account from Judas himself. Strangely, there isn't one. I find this incredulous.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

Shaman, I think Judas was Jesus' favorite apostle...and that Jesus himself asked Judas to go and call escorts...if he did betray him, what could he betray him off?
I saw this program one day, and they mentioned that Jesus preached in temples daily and sick people came to him to heal, everyone knew where he was...I do not think locating him would be such a hassle or difficult to find...no point in betraying location...Plus he kissed him...scholars mentioned that during those times kiss ment hello or goodbye, there is no such a thing as kiss of betrayel.
btw shaman...not only we do not have words of Judas, but also Mary Magdaline and many others. The stories we have have been modified great deal by Roman Rulers IMO...Since it was Romans who finally adopted christianity, I think it was the Ceaser who pointed out which books/stories should be removed and which remanined.

As far as Judas goes, there a a variety of popular theories that go along the lines that Jesus was not betrayed by judas, but rather that Jesus requested of Judas that he inform teh authorities of his wherabouts, to bring the whole episode to its destined climax.
This theory is, to my understanding, allegedly supported by a variety of extra-biblical texts, though I have no personal knowledge in that area.

Reitsma - your last summary is pretty much on the mark. As far as what I beleive about what happened - I do not beleive he rose from the dead. I do beleive that he died. I beleive any notion of rising form the dead was purely imaginary. This could have happened for very many reasons, and in very many ways. The possibilities at his particular point could certainly include outright lies (a hoax even) for the purpose of proving the importance of the slain prophet so that the movement would not lose momentum despite the loss of its central figure. It could also, very easily, have evolved somewhat spontaneously by someone suffering either a legitimate delusion or a simple need for attention (I saw him, I did! Alive as ever! How many times has that happened. Perhaps Jesus is hanging out in a paris cafe with Jim Morrison and Elvis...).

I simply find nothing in the bible or in the other texts of that era/subject to give me even the slightest inclination to beleive in the myth of jesus any moreso than in the myths of hercules, odysseus, sasquatch, paul bunyon, etc etc etc...

quote:

---

scholars mentioned that during those times kiss ment hello or goodbye, there is no such a thing as kiss of betrayel.

---

ok, so if judas walked up to him and gave him a kiss to say hello, and there happens to be a garrison of guards behind him...sorry, but you're reaching on that one and it was constantine who with a council put the bible together, 320-something AD i think, just fyi.

questions for thought...if christ didn't rise from the dead why didn't the romans simply produce his body and put an end to all the speculation and kill off christianity right then? christianity did become mainstream a few hundred years later, but at the time the romans were very anti-christian and wanted it gone if at all possible.

WS, as far as judas, if he did kill himself after betraying christ when exactly would his account have been written?

as far as translations, originally some older translations were adapted from the original king james version of the bible, since then there have been a number of translations that have actually returned to the original hebrew and greek texts for their source.

chris

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

WS

The story of Jonah could possibly be true. Because all is possible with God. Again, whats more important? How the story happend or the message it tries to convey. The real message of Jonah is this: Jonah was a prototype of Christ. A revealing in the OT to the fulfilling in the savior, Jesus in the NT. God asked the prophet Jonah to go to Nineve to tell the people to repent because there is so much sin there. God sent his Son, Christ to earth to do the same. Jonah doesn't want to preach this and flees from the task on a boat, but a storm overtakes him and he is cast overboard and is swallowed by a monster for three days and nites. Chirst dies on the crosss and is risen after three days. The plan is compeletd. Salvation comes thur his death and ressurection. Jonah gives praises of thanksgiving to God in the monsters belly and then is cast upon dry land and then takes up his task to do the will of God. The city of Ninive repents and the city is spared. Jesus comes to do the will of his father in heaven without question and all who hear, hear God and will be saved if they repent. And their souls will not perish.

Jonah was in the whale's belly three days and three nights: so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. The men of Ninive shall rise in judgment with this generation and shall condemn it: because they did penance at the preaching of Jonah. And behold a greater than Jonah here" (Matt., xii, 40-1; xvi, 4; Luke, xi, 29-32). The Jews asked for a real miracle. Christ would have deceived them had He presented a fancy. He argues clearly that just as Jonah was in the whale's belly three days and three nights even so He will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. If, then, the stay of Jonah in the belly of the monster be only a fiction, the stay of Christ's body in the heart of the earth is only a fiction. If the men of Ninive will really not rise in judgment, neither will the Jews really rise. Christ contrasts fact with fact, not fancy with fancy, nor fancy with fact. It would be very strange, indeed, were Jesus to say that he was greater than a fancy-formed man. It would be little less strange were he to berate the Jews for their real lack of penance by rating this lack in contrast with the penance of Ninive which may never existed at all. The whole force of these striking contrasts is lost, if we admit that the story of Jonah is not fact.

To accept Joanh story as just factual story beyond getting the real point of the story, I can see why you think the way you do.

Also Judas, the only scholar of the twelve, handled the purse of the apostles. Even though the learned Judas witnessed and saw the miracles, he loved maybe money and power more, which eventually could have dammed his soul. His vision was not the same vision of the other eleven disciples. This is too a message for all today. The persons of Judas are living today. Persons accept there is a God and see the goodness of God today, but in name only. They continued to live for wealth, power, greed, fame, etc. and do not do the will of God. Judas did not live beyond long after the crucifixion, because he hung himself. How could one chosen as a disciple, enjoying the grace of the and the privilege of intimate friendship with the Jesus be tempted to betray him? The Jesus betrayed was not hard and stern, but a lord of loving kindness and compassion. Looked at in any light the crime is so incredible. As a traitor, betrayer, Judas has naturally had hatred, especially among those devoted to Christianity. Its only natural that some Christians regard Judas with loathing, and paint him blacker than he was by allowing him no good qualities at all. Its supposed that he never really believed, if he was a false disciple from the first, or was he was possessed by Satan even in his childhood, he would not have felt the holy influence of Christ or enjoyed the light and spiritual gifts of the ministry.

At the opposite extreme is the strange view that Judas acted as he did in order that mankind might be redeemed by the death of Christ. As theory it is suggested that Judas, who in common with the other disciples looked for a temporal kingdom of the Messias, did not anticipate the death of Christ, but wished to get a crisis going to hasten the hour of triumph, thinking that the arrest would provoke a rising of the people who would set Jesus free and place him on a throne. Could be that when he found that Christ was condemned and given up to the Romans, he immediately repented of what he had done. But this repentance does not prove that the result had not been foreseen. Murderers, who have killed their victims with deliberatly are often moved to remorse when the deed is actually done. Difficult it may be to understand, we cannot question the guilt of Judas. On the other hand we cannot take the opposite view of those who would deny that he was once a real disciple. This view seems hard to reconcile with the fact that he was chosen by Christ to be one of the twelve. We could see that in if we exaggerate the original malice of Judas, or deny that there was even any good in him, we miss the lesson of this fall. And in the same way it is a grave mistake for us to think of Judas as a demon without any goodness and grace. In his fall is left a warning that even the great grace of the higher ups, pastors, Catholic priest, ministers, nuns and the those with friendship of Jesus may be of no avail to one who is unfaithful.

(Edited by jade on 06-03-2004 18:57)

@ Fig - well, assuming Judas did kill himself directly afterwards, why is there no chapter dedicated to him in the New Testament (as for the other Apostles?) He was an Apostle, after all. Surely he said much during his time with Jesus...why was this not recorded? Or maybe it was, and it never made it into the New Testament? In that case, what a tragedy - I would like to know what he knew, and his side of the story.

Jade, first of all, thank you for the effort. I used to be a Christian, and I have studied the Bible, so much of what you have posted I already know. I posted what I did, as direct evidence to support what DL-44 has said - Legends and Myths.

As for Judas, I think you are missing the point here. If, according ot what is in the New Testament, Jesus really did do all the Miracles that he did (as described), do you really think that one of the Apostles would doubt that Jesus was the Son of God? And if he didn't doubt, but instead was too greedy (as you have suggested as a possibility), don't you think he would know that he would pay in the Afterlife? No, I don't think that Judas (or anyone, for that matter) would react that way - unless they were insane or things happened much differently than as written in the New Testament.

Since we have no reason to suspect that Judas was insane (certainly it is not sugested anywhere in the Bible), then we are only left with the latter.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

quote:

---

@ Fig - well, assuming Judas did kill himself directly afterwards, why is there no chapter dedicated to him in the New Testament (as for the other Apostles?) He was an Apostle, after all. Surely he said much during his time with Jesus...why was this not recorded? Or maybe it was, and it never made it into the New Testament? In that case, what a tragedy - I would like to know what he knew, and his side of the story.

---

I would not classify Judas as an apostle. He was a disciple when Jesus lived. I would say apostles are the ones who spread the ministry of Jesus and Judas did not do that. By his own hands, he had no opportunity to do so. His successor was appointed by the remaining eleven. I think his name was Mathias? Its interesting that out of the eleven who preach the truth of Jesus, you do not believe, but want to hear what the one who betrayed him had to say. Could it be its because you think Judas might of had some info that could contridict the other apostles and thousands of followers who personally knew Jesus? And this would prove to you Jesus was not the son of God.

quote:

---

if christ didn't rise from the dead why didn't the romans simply produce his body and put an end to all the speculation and kill off christianity right then?

---

Well...would the romans even know where the body was? I would have to assume not, though I don't know. I would also have to assume that anyone involved with promoting the story of the resurection would be intelligent enough to remove/hide/bury/destroy the body...

Jade - the point is, such stories only go to show that such events never really happened. It's all about the message, and not about factual events. That's fine and dandy, and is very effective way of getting messages across.

But to say on the one hand that yes, such things are simply stories to get a message across, and then to say on the other hand that the stories of jesus must be true, is a very twisted way of trying to reconcile something and I am truly dumbfounded that such a view of the bible could be held.

DL

Jesus himself, spoke in parables and told stories to convey messages so all he preached could be well understood. He was a great and unique story teller. No doubt many stories, myths, legends were spread orally well before his time by many storytellers. And after. But the difference between him and all the others before him is that no one spoke as he had or was what he was. No other living person has made an impact in the world as Jesus has. An no one person ever will. Yes. Some of the bible is historical fact and some of it could be stories that could have been used to convey a point. The importance is to know what is truth and this can only be seen by faith. Per Jesus words. "I came into the world to give sight to the blind and take away sight to those who say, I see ." As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world for all to see. And to the jewish leaders who were trying to trick him, " You say you see, but your sin remains. "Blind vipers. You cannot lead others into the kindgom, and you yourselves do not enter. You will not see me in the temple till you learn to cry, Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord for I and my father are one in the same" The vision to see truth is not granted to all." And those who professed to know Jesus and have turned away from him, have had their sight taken away.

(Edited by jade on 06-03-2004 21:09)

sorry, but a little interjection here.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

I beleive any notion of rising form the dead was purely imaginary.

---

i'm sorry, but Jesus wasn't the only person in history to "raise from the dead". His expirience was the only one that was prophicised by more than one person, but He wasn't the only one.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Since we have no reason to suspect that Judas was insane (certainly it is not
sugested anywhere in the Bible), then we are only left with the latter.

---

Judas may not have been insane in the standards of the people back then, that was not the "lingo". They would have said that he was possessed. Which is exactly what the bible says about why Judas Iscarot betrayed Jesus Christ. It also says that he goes back to the Saheradin(I think I spelled that wrong) and demands that they trade back. They obviously disagree.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

But to say on the one hand that yes, such things are simply stories to get a
message across, and then to say on the other hand that the stories of jesus must
be true, is a very twisted way of trying to reconcile something and I am truly
dumbfounded that such a view of the bible could be held.

---

Yes, the stories are to get a message across, but it does use fact as well. The stories of Jesus are true. There are many eyewitness reports from people that have been healed, miraculously fed, etc. From this far a point in the future, it is hard to KNOW for a FACT if Jesus Christ really is the Son of God and the Messiah that the Jews have been waiting for. The evidence we have is mainly hearsay, but we do have proof from non-Chirstians. The simple fact of the matter is that we DO NOT KNOW anything is for real outside of our own time line. For all I know, landing on the moon could be fake, Hitler rising to power could be fake, and many other thing could be fake because it really is all just nerve synapses in the brain that tell us what is and isn't. This theory is embodied by the saying that i may see blue when you see red. I guess what I am trying to say is that there is A LOT of evidence and A LOT of counter evidence for the birth, life, death, and ressurection of the Christ, but what you mainly need is belief. If you do not believe then it will appear one way, and if you do believe it will appear another. It is all on what you personally believe. And if you have not had any personal encounters with God, then how can you believe in Him?

Do not rebuke a moker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Judas Iscariot was a zealot, and probably motivated by a political agenda. He wanted a revolution to overthrow the Roman occupation, and apparently felt that Jesus was charismatic enough to gather the Jewish population under him to overthrow the government. And like a true fanatic, when Jesus, as a peacemaker, wasn't living up to Judas' expectations, he tried to force his hand, believing that if Jesus' life was threatened, he would possibly prove himself to be the "king" he claimed to be. Judas' suicide was possibly remorse when he realized he had indeed condemned Jesus to death.

Interestingly, there is really very little that was written at the time of Jesus' life on earth regarding him. I believe there was one historical note (Josephus?) that was made shortly after his death, regarding the beheading of John, "brother of Jesus." Non of the gospels was written during his lifetime, altho some claim to have been written shortly afterward, notably the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary, both gnostic, and both conceivably written by followers. So, actual historical evidence is a little hard to come by. But that in itself doesn't really delegate Jesus to the classification of myth. . . . many people who actually existed were not historically memorable at the time. The fact that Jesus retained believers who did know and write about him regarding his life and teachings does make it seem highly unlikely that he was a legend. Legends and myths take many years to develop; they are built by stories that traditionally get handed down from generation to generation until they become larger than life. Do I believe Jesus existed? Definitely. It would be hard to explain so much to do about nothing! Do I believe he was the son of God? Aren't we all???

Dragonlady

quote:

---

i'm sorry, but Jesus wasn't the only person in history to "raise from the dead".

---

Ok...
And that has what to do with anything?

quote:

---

The stories of Jesus are true.

---

Oh.....well that sure clears it all up

quote:

---

There are many eyewitness reports from people that have been healed, miraculously fed, etc.

---

We covered that, pretty thoroughly I thought.

quote:

---

The evidence we have is mainly hearsay, but we do have proof from non-Chirstians.

---

Huh?

quote:

---

...but what you mainly need is belief.

---

Yuh. And with that kind of thinking, before long Superman is real. And we go back to what I've said and explained a whole bunch of times. Stories, myths, legends...etc.

Before you know it we're all flying off to never-never-land with peterpan at the helm.

Seeing as tangents are the play of the day in this thread, i'll pursure this judas topic a little further.

quote:

---

Also, there is Judas (one of the Apostles - he sure didn't get his side of the story into the New Testament. I wonder why?) Now, if Jesus really did do all these miracles, then why didn't Judas believe that Jesus was the "Son of God"?

---

Here are my thoughts on Judas:
Jesus wasn't the leader that Judas wanted. (i think this was touched on by someone else) Jesus was a servant leader, who showed compassion, and - wait for it - was going to sacrifice himself! Judas wanted a powerful, political (military even) leader. This is in line with his character too - he wanted power and money.
Judas loved money more. This is a very common problem, even today - especially today. "you cannot serve both God and money" is what Jesus said, and Judas proved. If you love money, you're going to have a lot of problems. The gospel of John describes how Mary wiped expensive purfume on Jesus' feet with her hair. Here's how Judas responded (John 12:4-6):

quote:

---

But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5"Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages]number] " 6He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

---

Jesus rebukes Judas, and it is around this point that, according to Luke 22:3, Satan entered Judas Iscariot. So I suppose this also helps to explain his actions.

Now, in Matthew 26, it says:

quote:

---

14Then one of the Twelve--the one called Judas Iscariot--went to the chief priests 15and asked, "What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?" So they counted out for him thirty silver coins. 16From then on Judas watched for an opportunity to hand him over.

---

From this verse, it seems that they weren't so much after someone to identify Jesus, as much as a good oppurtunity. What does this mean? Luke 22 clarifies:

quote:

---

1Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching, 2and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some way to get rid of Jesus, for they were afraid of the people. 3Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve. 4And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus. 5They were delighted and agreed to give him money. 6He consented, and watched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present.

---

So, to me this seems to explain Judas' actions. Additionally, his actions afterwards seem to indicate that he realised what he had done - as he felt great remorse, threw the coins back at the priests, and went and hanged himself.

Ok, i'm done!

reitsma

Ok...Judas hangs himself??!! But suicide is a sin, right? So he just excellerated his way into Hell. Ummm...if he is being repentive, that doesn't make any sense at all. And since he is a Christian, he can repent, right? If he really regrets what he has done, and then truly repents, then he would have been forgiven - that is one of the reasons that Jesus died on the cross, right?

@ Jade

quote:

---

Its interesting that out of the eleven who preach the truth of Jesus, you do not believe, but want to hear what the one who betrayed him had to say. Could it be its because you think Judas might of had some info that could contridict the other apostles and thousands of followers who personally knew Jesus? And this would prove to you Jesus was not the son of God.

---

Uhhh...I (and anyone who has actually read the New Testament) already know what the other apostles have to say. What we don't know, is what Judas has to say (if anything). I have no idea, if Judas' testimony would contradict the others...why am I interested (which, by the way, you could of just asked)? Well, he is an eyewitness, who was among the "inner circle" of Jesus' followers. I would be interested in just knowing what Judas has to say...his side of the story. There are always two sides to any story. We have heard the other 11. I would like to hear Judas story...not that that will happen, but it would be nice.

I don't believe, because I think that, as DL said, that it is the stuff of legends and myth. One must keep in mind, that these are the "stories" of those who fanatically followed Jesus...I hardly think that such is a source of real, factual information.

I do believe that the person Jesus did exist. I imagine that he was much like Ghandi. I am sure, that had Ghandi been born in such times, much the same would have happened concerning his life. However, we have different means to document his life, with video, etc. We know that he didn't really perform any "miracles". Was it left up to his believers, to spread the word of Ghandi, however, without modern ways of cataloging, how would such look in 300+ years? What evidence would one have? Just word of mouth, and probably some written stuff.

Do I see people claiming that Ghandi was the "Son of God"? Do I see a religion forming around the man?

By katologing, with the methods we have today, we remove the "legend and myth" of such - surely, Ghandi was a remarkable human being. But the "Son of God"? Nope.

And this is what I believe, the Israeli's mean, by saying that Jesus was not the "Son of God", not the promised Savior of Mankind.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

quote:

---

Its interesting that out of the eleven who preach the truth of Jesus, you do not believe, but want to hear what the one who betrayed him had to say.

---

To expand on WS' reply a little more - for starters, we know what four of those eleven had to say...well well after the fact. Is there not the possibility that they chose Judas as a scapegoat? And of course "satan entered him" yes...anytime anyone does anything bad, it's because satan entered him...

Now, why would anyone not want to hear his side?

Regardless what you beleive, regardless of what kind of faith you have in god/jesus, it is purely irresponsible to not take into account the political reasons behind the writing of the gospels. These were people who had an immediate situation to worry about - not people who were concerned with accurately capturing, for posterity, the events of their movement.

I would very much like to hear what Judas would have to say, as he is portrayed very negatively. Whenever someone is painted as the 'bad one' in the lot and blamed for bringing it all down, I have a need to hear the other side of the story. I still beleive in the idea of 'innocent until proven guilty' and the carefully orchestrated stories of the gospels don't count as proof of Judas' guilt.

.


Would anyone of more knowledge care to comment on the idea that Judas was acting on Jesus' request, against his own will?

(Edited by DL-44 on 06-04-2004 14:07)

DL, I have so much to respond to in this thread but I'll start with your last statements. There were most certainly political reasons for the actions of many of the players in the NT. But the political situation was that Judea resented Roman rule and many looked to the Messiah promised in the OT to restore Israel to its former prominance. But they expected a physical and powerful earthly kingdom to be reestablished and that is the critical point.

The idea that Judas wanted to push Jesus into that role seems entirely plausible to me. It would fit what we know about the situation of the time. If Judas truly believed that Jesus claimed to be the chosen one, then what was taking him so long in assuming power and organizing the eventual overthrow of the Romans? By turning him into the Jewish authorities, he may have beleived this would begin that process.

Would you agree that this was the political reality of the time? If you think I am overlooking any aspect of the political situation as it relates to the gospels, I would very much like to understand what it is.

... and like I said there is a lot to address in this thread and I am working on it, if I can only find enough time today to get to it.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

That sounds pretty accurate to my understanding.

What I mean though, is the political reasons for the writing of the gospels, and the way in which that might affect the tone or direction. I don't find it hard to beleive that Judas handed Jesus over to the authorities. But I can't accept as hard truth that he simply betrayed jesus out of greed. I won't wholly discount the idea either - I'm just not willing to blindly condemn a man in what is quite certainly a hazy situation...

It's good to have villians and scapegoat. Necessary, you might even say. Judas certainly made a convenient figure to mark a such.

But I want to know more...

On a side note, I particularly enjoy the presentation of the relationship between Judas and Jesus in 'the last temptation of christ'. It is, if nothing else, interesting.

(Edited by DL-44 on 06-04-2004 14:53)

@ Jade

quote:

---

I would not classify Judas as an apostle.

---

- you need to get your Bible "facts" straight -

quote:

---

Judas Iscariot. ... Thus, in the list of the Apostles given in the Synoptic Gospels, we read: "and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him". Matthew 10:4. - Catholic Encyclopedia

---

According to the Bible, Judas was an Apostle.

It's all right here Judas Iscariot

Pretty interesting stuff...it would seem, that Judas is only mentioned in connection with his betrayal. Then why is he considered an Apostle? The other Apostles did miracles, right? No mention of Judas. In fact, it seems that Judas is very negatively portrayed in the Bible re-collections of him. I find that totally unbelievable. If the man was so bad, then why was he allowed to become an Apostle in the first place?

It just doesn't make any sense. Unless one thinks along the lines of "Legends and Myths". Then it makes plenty of sense.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

I still plan on seeing that movie. I look forward to it so I can discuss it with you

I am not aware of any reason you should feel pressured to believe that "he simply betrayed Jesus out of greed". Just because that may be a common belief held by many does not make it the best choice. There are multitudes of misconceptions about the scriptures held by believers and unbelievers alike. We must make it our first priority to get as clear a picture of the facts as is humanly possible in order to come to sound conclusions on these things.

I don't think we will ever know more about Judas' motivations. I doubt anything was written about that anymore than what we have. I suspect that being the treasurer and known to be a bit tight with the money combined with resentment toward him for the betrayal and taking reward money makes it easy for people to dismiss him as a greedy bastard and nothing more. The fact that he got a monetary reward for turning him in does not mean his motivation was the money especially if he had higher goals of inducing a revolt. He would have far more to gain from being a key member of the new government than just a few pieces of silver. That still could very well be the reason he did it but I think the explanation DragonLady gave could be closer to the truth.


Ok, regarding the political reasons for writing the gospels themselves... this is precisely one of the reasons I place more credibility onto what the gospels actually say. What was the political reasons to write them??? If you wanted to restore Israel to a world power and oppose the Romans, how does emphasizing "love thine enemies" work toward that goal? "Blessed are the peace makers" doesn't exactly make me want to go and take up sword against the oppressors, right?

I don't see what the political reasons that you may be alluding to undermine the message in the gospels. I think you may be saying that propogating the message itself was the primary reason for writing them. I TOTALLY AGREE. What is that message? Kick the Romans out and love live King Jesus who rose from the dead to smite the unclean? It's not even close to that.

It's a message that the "kingdom of God" has come and it is a kingdom like none the world has ever seen. It is a kingdom that you cannot see where there is no throne room or capitol city. It's a kingdom that cannot be broken because it exists within every believer. The apostles, all 12 of them even days before Christ's crucifixion DID NOT GRASP. These guys lived with Jesus for 3 years and could not comprehend what was going to happen, and I certainly can't blame them because it turned conventional wisdom on its head. Christ taught that the greatest among them would be the lowest and a servant to men. What?!? It made no sense at the time but it does now as we read what the apostles wrote after the Spirit was poured out on them and they finally realized what Jesus had been talking about all that time.

I think the gospels were clearly written with the express purpose of propogating this message. We know that each of the gospels was written to a different audience and each one is "tailored" to make the message more agreeable to said audience. The gospels were written to Jews, Romans, and Greeks. The Jews loved to hear how Jesus had a royal lineage from King David, while the Romans loved hearing how Christ was a powerful king who would be victorious in spiritual battle, while John wrote of the "Logos" becoming flesh and dwelling among us. If this is what you mean by the political reasons behind the gospels, then bless you for that and now we can move on to the next step of examining whether or not the message itself carries any actual weight.

That is why I mentioned hoax earlier. I wasn't glibly reducing it down to truth or hoax but rather after having looked at the situation not seeing a whole lot of other options. So I have one more thing to say about that which is very important. Earlier you mention that myths and legends grew up about Jesus over time. Well, there are several other gospels not contained in the canon that do have very legendary qualities about Jesus in them. In fact, since they were written long after the original gospels, I agree that many of those stories about Jesus are myths.

But the gospels in the canon were all written with the lifetimes of the apostles themselves and were most certainly written by them (that includes being dictated by the way). So it really isn't about anything developing over time at all when it comes to the core message we find in the gospels. It should be generally agreed that the historical reliability of those documents is well supported and that it now comes down to this, was the message the apostles recorded true or false?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 06-04-2004 16:17)

WS said:

quote:

---

If the man was so bad, then why was he allowed to become an Apostle in the first place?

---

Jesus said that the betrayal was foretold and that what Judas decided to do fulfilled that foretelling.

quote:

---

"I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill the scripture: 'He who shares my bread has lifted up his heel against me.'
"I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He. I tell you the truth, whoever accepts anyone I send accepts me; and whoever accepts me accepts the one who sent me."
After he had said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, "I tell you the truth, one of you is going to betray me."
--John 13: 18-21

---

The scripture Jesus referenced was:

quote:

---

Even my close friend, whom I trusted,
he who shared my bread,
has lifted up his heel against me.
--Psalm 41:9

---

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Bugs

quote:

---

But the gospels in the canon were all written with the lifetimes of the apostles themselves and were most certainly written by them (that includes being dictated by the way). So it really isn't about anything developing over time at all when it comes to the core message we find in the gospels. It should be generally agreed that the historical reliability of those documents is well supported and that it now comes down to this, was the message the apostles recorded true or false?

---

This is not necessarily true. As you know, the Apostles themselves went on, after Jesus' death, to build factions amognst the believers. It is then most certain (especially when examining the Dead Sea Scrolls) that much of the Bible was written by groups. Who, exactly, recorded the Gospels? You say "most certainly" the apostles themselves - however, you cannot say for certain. What should be mentioned, is in those times, writing was not well spread among the populace, especially not among the trades that the Apostles had learned. So, who actually wrote down that which the Apostles dictated? And in 300 years, certainly these must have been transcribed (and even translated), before actually making it into the Bible.

Bugs, we are talking about the Apostles here - to which certain miracles, etc are contributed - are we to believe, that Judas was part of these "miracles", but later betrayed Jesus? Why isn't his role then mentioned as such? And now you are also going into the realm of "legend and myth", with a "foretelling"...either these are accurate historical descriptions (then foretelling is not a part of it, really), or it is allegorical, stories. Or, you are suggesting, that Jesus really had the ability to foresee (foretell) the future?

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

(Edited by WebShaman on 06-04-2004 17:02)

When I say political, I don't necessarily mean governmental.

It was essential that they get their message out, their way. If they were to maintain any credibility at all, and if they were going to ahve any future at all.

When getting a message out so vital, getting the facts right becomes secondary at best. That is an *extremely* important point.

Adding little extras like the idea that jesus told them that scripture would be fulfilled, and thus prove his legitimacy (and then using Judas as a scapegoat to fulfill that role) is easily something that could be done for the sake of the message and the movement. I'm not saying that's the way it went - simply a small example of how easy it is for such things to grow.
.


Now, in the big picture I'm not overly concerned about the role of Judas. But while we're going this route - how do we know he collected any money at all? Because the people accusing him of betrayal (blaming it all on him) say so? How would they have known in the first place?

(Edited by DL-44 on 06-04-2004 18:08)

WS

Interesting. The apostles, for the most part, WERE illiterate, and partly because of snobbishness (they were, with the exception of Judas Iscariot, all from small villages in Galilee) the Pharisees referred to them as "unlearned and ignorant men." That is not to say, however, that ALL the apostles were illiterate. It is generally accepted that Jesus was schooled, so probably also were his brothers, Jude and James. Several were fishermen, one a tax collector; and Paul, generally considered the fourteenth apostle in line after Matthias replaced Judas, was a tentmaker . . . but since most of the epistles are attributed to him, was also literate. He certainly could write very long letters.

Nevertheless, it was not necessary for the apostles to have personally written the gospels. It seems to me that only two of the gospels, notably Matthew and John, are attributed to apostles. Certainly there must have been disciples around whose "job" it was to write, since the primary duty of the apostles was to preach. Mark (generally believed to be the young man who, when Jesus was arrested, ran from the Romans naked) and Luke (a physician) were not among the apostles, but were disciples, and learned men presumably capable of writing the other two gospels that are attributed to them.

And there is always DICTATION . . .

Dragonlady

Excellent info, Dragonlady In the case of Luke, it is thought that he got most of his information straight from Peter. Also, you can almost include the Acts of the Apostles together with Luke's gospel since he wrote that too and it picks up right where the gospel leaves off.

WS, the point is that it is generally not disputed that the gospels we have contain information from the apostles themselves. I say generally because there are always those who don't keep up with the latest studies on the subject and others who aren't interested in the details and prefer to stick with what they believe to be the case. But I've read that the debate about the historical reliability of the documents is somewhat settled BUT the accuracy of what is contained in them is where the battle is now taking place. I think we all need to update our placeholders so to speak and take on the current debated areas.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Wow! you guys are really geeting deep into this. Great stuff!

You have to understand prophecy all the way back to the beginning to get what Judas was all about.

Bugs quoted: "I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill the scripture: 'He who shares my bread has lifted up his heel against me."

Genesis 3:15 (God speaking to Satan)
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.


Here's an exerpt concerning Judas from a study of Matthew (borrowed):


(3) Then Judas, which had betrayeth Him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

Judas REPENTED? Yes, that is right! When Judas saw the reality of what the chief priests and elders intended to do with Jesus, in that they intended to have Him killed, he repented and took the thirty pieces of silver back to them. Since therefore it is written that Judas repented, how is it then that so many Christians condemn him to eternal damnation along side Satan (who never repented), especially since this type of betrayal is NOT the unpardonable sin? Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the unpardonable sin (Mat. 12:31)!

In fact, is it not written in Mark 13:12 and Luke 21:16 that some of God's elect shall betrayed by their closest friends and loved ones in these last days? "And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death." Though they do it in ignorance instead of for gain, would you not forgive your loved ones if they repented?

Just so there is no doubt about Judas' repentance, here is his confession... even before the chief priests and elders.

(4) Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.

"What is that to us?" Boy that's a slap in the face.

(5) And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Did Judas actually go out and "hang himself" or as Acts chapter 1:18 demands which Dr. Bullinger points out on page 1577 in the Companion Bible, was "he himself hanged" or as the Greek word #519 "apagchomai" denotes, "strangled"? Most churches teach that Judas committed suicide. However, take a lesson from this and from henceforth be very careful to always do a full investigation before you follow along with the crowd who listens to their religious leaders who dictate doctrines and traditions from their own hearts and without seeking knowledge.

To that end, let us begin our own study of what actually happened to Judas by first using a little wisdom and common sense in discerning what has just transpired. When Judas saw that Jesus was condemned (to death) he repented himself for what he had done in betraying an innocent man! He then went back to return the thirty pieces of silver and to confront the "chief priests and elders" in the temple, which we just read about in verse 3, because he now knows that their evil plot all along was to murder Jesus Christ... which they certainly did not deny in verse 4. So after hearing that they could care less that he was sorry for what he had done, Judas cast down those thirty pieces of silver and departed, perhaps storming out of there with "attitude"! Of course the "storming out of there" is just speculation, but regardless of how Judas departed, the chief priests and the elders of the people now have a real problem on their hands because Judas knows what they as "good religious leaders" have conspired to do and they cannot risk having this disciple of Christ going out amongst the people and expose their murderous conspiracy.

Let's go to Acts 1:15-20 where a description is given of what took place when Judas left the temple.

Acts 1:15-20
And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

Remember how Peter used to speak whenever Jesus told him the plan according to Father's will, i.e. according to the Word of God? He had a bad habit of not "listening to and remembering" the words of Jesus as evidenced by the things he said, like "no way, I'm not going to allow you to be delivered up and killed" according to scripture (Mat. 16:22)". He said "no way, though all men shall offend thee I will never offend thee", no matter what Zechariah said (Mat. 26:33)", and he said "no way, though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee", even though the Word of God had just declared it to be so (Mat. 26:35). Well, after the cock crowed Peter became a changed man believing the surety of all "things that are written". How about you? How seriously do you take "that which is written" over the traditions of men and the things they do and say and over your own thoughts and desires?

Notice now how Peter thinks and speaks throughout this section of scripture. Here he is on that first Pentecost Day:

(16) Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

Can you now "see" the incredible difference in Peter? He now not only "remembers" the Word of God but we shall see how he now seeks to "follow it" exactly as it written, according to Father's will... and not his own any more!

(17) For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

That right! Judas had his part in the ministry with the other eleven! He was one of the original twelve disciples and had his destiny to fulfill in carrying out the plan already laid out, as in written, in the Word of God!

(18) Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

It was the reward or the "result of sin" that purchased the Potter's Field! Why should this be a surprise to anyone? You "see", it was sin which made it necessary for Jesus Christ to shed His innocent blood in the first place. That being the case... you could say we all had part in it, seeing that we are all sinners. The question is, "Should that shed blood apply only to us and not to Judas as well?" Be very careful in how you judge others, lest ye condemn yourself in your own judgment.

Nevertheless, verse 18 causes a problem with Judas hanging himself, all by himself, in that one cannot both hang himself and then slit his guts open to where they fall out. It seems more probable that this was a strangling and then someone cut him wide open as he fell headlong. In any event, those of the churches of Philadelphia and Smyrna who know and understand the ruthlessness of the kenites can more easily understand this than those who are blinded to the traditions of men.

(19) And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

Remember from our previous study that the Potter's field was purchased according to scripture in Zech. 11:13. Remember too that Jesus Christ, through the innocent blood He shed on the cross, can take those broken pieces of pottery, our shattered lives, and put them back together again. Note: For more insight and understanding, look up the compound Greek word translated "Aceldama" in your Strong's Concordance and follow its roots.

(20) For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

"See" again how Peter now speaks... "It is written"... and so it must and shall be done according to the Word of God, right? And when Peter sees the events that take place on that first Pentecost Day in the next chapter of Acts, he will also "remember" the words of Joel the prophet concerning the last days, the days you and I now live in! Do you think Peter had any doubt whatsoever that Joel's prophecy would not come to pass exactly as it is written? Do you? I guess the next question is, "Have you ever read it with understanding?"

(Edited by Bugimus on 06-05-2004 02:14)

i had trouble posting the above and i don't know what the HELL happened or how the user names got in there

actually the post didn't ever seem to go through on my end - the little hourglass never went away, so i gave up and closed the connection. after a while i checked back to find the above. i didn't try to edit it. something screwy in Denmark, i guess.

(Edited by outcydr on 06-04-2004 22:52)

ok. i figured it out and now i'm doubly embarrassed - that's what i get for copying and pasting in a hurry

(Edited by outcydr on 06-05-2004 01:36)

outcydr, I took the liberty of editing your post to correct the linkword action. We have a way of quickly linking to pages within the Asylum using "linkwords". See the id at the top right of every post? You can enclose that number in square brackets in order to easily link to that page. That is why you got those strange links to people's cells.

For example square bracket 15 and you get Bugimus

Do it to this page's id and you get Dinosaur Adventure Land! (or, how the Creationists explain the Dinosaurs)

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Dragonlady -

quote:

---

And there is always DICTATION . . .

---

Ummm...did you actually read my post? Just curious, because in it I said

quote:

---

So, who actually wrote down that which the Apostles dictated?

---

Now, I am not saying that all the Apostles were illiterate. I'm saying that most probably, most were. Most came from lower cats, and from handwork-type trades, where learning to read/write were extra costs that most could not afford, and were not really necessary for the trade.

quote:

---

Certainly there must have been disciples around whose "job" it was to write, since the primary duty of the apostles was to preach.

---

- well, if this is true, considering the years of Jesus, there has been a lot of information thrown out, hasn't there? In fact, a lot of what is in the New testament seems to be "condensed" - and this type of writing does tend towards Legend, Myth, and Fable. It is a way of retaining the message (as DL has suggested), without the "unecessary" information inbetween...but that information becomes critical, when trying to evaluate the accuracy and truth of such. Since most of it is missing, evaluation and accuracy then lies within the realm of guesswork, and comparison.

quote:

---

But I've read that the debate about the historical reliability of the documents is somewhat settled BUT the accuracy of what is contained in them is where the battle is now taking place. I think we all need to update our placeholders so to speak and take on the current debated areas.

---

Everything that I have read up to this point (and I have been researching this heavily in the past few days) shows huge disagreements with this statement, bugs. Within the Christian world, there are major disagreements on what the information actually means. When one discusses Judas, there are many different views on this (as evidenced alone in this thread).

How can you say for certain that your view, among the myriad of other Christian views, is the most accurate?

Also, for someone evaluating the Scriptures (and the Bible) from a non-belief stand-point, the message is unimportant. And the clear lack of vital information inbetween, is I think a very interesting point in itself - it seems that this is done intentionally.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

quote:

---

How can you say for certain that your view, among the myriad of other Christian views, is the most accurate?

Also, for someone evaluating the Scriptures (and the Bible) from a non-belief stand-point, the message is unimportant. And the clear lack of vital information inbetween, is I think a very interesting point in itself - it seems that this is done intentionally.

---

yes indeed, and for a very good reason

2Th 2:11 - 12 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

i'm not saying this is the case for you. i happen to think you are closer to the truth than most believers.

something that plagued me for years about the bible was: what is the millenium all about? why would christ return, bind satan, set up his kingdom on earth, and then wait 1000 years before the judgement? and set satan free again (for a season) to boot??

rightly dividing the word of god can be hazardous to your belief system. even when i found a teacher who could answer this, and many other seemingly unanswerable questions i had about the bible, it's still only head knowledge. and that doesn't count for much in the kingdom of god, because: it is within your heart.

in answer to the millenium question: it is for the benefit of those who never had a chance in the first place.

I never practiced any formal religion growing up (aside from my own spiritual thinking). And I never really had any reason to disprove religion because of science (I am not a scientist).

When it came to discussing issues such as these with Christian friends (and even some family), I never felt as though I was being heard. To ME, responses were flighty and irrational to say the LEAST. But mind you, I was not taught to communicate in this "language." If I did not learn a "language" of religion, how on earth can I be expected to comprehend it?!

And when I'd exert ideas of spirituality that I maintained in my own mind with those that were on the opposite end, I was again not "heard."

When both groups begin to realize that some say toMAYto and some say toMAHto, there will be no debates. You cannot "teach" someone to adopt a pattern of thinking that goes beyond what they perceive the world as.

I pray that both groups recognize their differences, and have the wisdom to avoid trying to shove their "language" down another's throat. I for one am sick of it. If there can be no common "language" for discussing these issues, then discuss it with someone you CAN communicate WITH.

If everyone can learn to love each other despite how they perceive the world, this world would be a BETTER PLACE...

Thumper, your terminology is funny Because you've never practiced a religious system, but you say that you "pray that both groups recognize their differences." Just funny to me.

You know it's amazing how this topic has degenerated from it's intention. Anyone ever feel like it's too hard to keep up with a topic on these forums?


My Artwork - BMEzine.com

quote:

---

in answer to the millenium question: it is for the benefit of those who never had a chance in the first place.

---

Whoa! LOL! outcydr, like I've said before, we really need to talk. Try this one of for size... there will be no 1000 year earthly kingdom.

quote:

---

If there can be no common "language" for discussing these issues, then discuss it with someone you CAN communicate WITH.

---

That is what we try to do here, Thumper. This is a voluntary forum and people are free to speak their minds. I consider the free exchange of ideas in this place to be an extremely valuable and productive thing and I wouldn't change that for anything. Sometimes things get a bit heated but that's ok because we're all human and we are not robots devoid of passion.

quote:

---

You know it's amazing how this topic has degenerated from it's intention. Anyone ever feel like it's too hard to keep up with a topic on these forums?

---

Degenerated? Hardly! This thread is one of the better ones I've experienced. The wandering off topic is actually a requirement around here and it has worked this way for as long as I've been a member. All I can say about that is... deal with it

WS, my statement addressed the historical reliability of the New Testament documents. You say that is a HUGE debate in the Xian community of believers? How so? Doesn't it seem strange that Xians who base their faith on these words would find them unreliable? Can you please explain what you're talking about a little more for me because maybe I'm missing the point once again.

And as far as how do I know my view is the most accurate... again what view are you referring to? I have lots of views about the faith and some are mostly my speculation and some are very solid. For example, the actual motivations of Judas are very speculative because we have so little information but me saying that the apostle Paul was the author of most of the epistles is pretty hard to refute.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Thumper - are you speaking in general, or are your comments directed toward this conversation?

If you are referring to this conversation, you must have skipped a great deal, because there is (as there usually is around here) a pretty good conversation between christians and non....and the 'language" doesn't have much to do with it.

There are obviously some very fundamental differences in the way we are going to regard the subject...and some of those will never be overcome. But they can certainly be discussed...

Sanzen - degenerated?? It turned from a sharing of a ridiculous website into a 240+ post discussion of a vareiity of issues, and that's degeneration...?

quote:

---

Whoa! LOL! outcydr, like I've said before, we really need to talk. Try this one of for size... there will be no 1000 year earthly kingdom.

---

LOL! right back at you. duh!
are we not speaking of the same bible? the one that ends with the revelation (unveiling) of jesus christ?
the one that states that the redeemed will live and reign with him a thousand years and at the end of the thousand years satan will be loosed to gather the nations against him,gog and magog?
or was that armeggedon?
which is which, and who is who?
should i study more, or should you? (yust yoking)

Yep

The differing views of the end times have been debated for centuries, and if you consider all the interpretations of John's Revelation over that time, you will find me agreeing with much of the "amillennial" position.

Basically, I don't believe that all of John's visions were predicting literal future events. I believe when the day of judgement comes all of the dead shall rise and there will be a final accounting and that will be that, the faithful go with God and the unfaithful will be put away from his presence.

I believe the book of Revelation was written to a church that was enduring *intense* persecution. We know that this was happening at the time of its writing and I think it was written as a book of victory over the madness that was going on at the time. The Christians of Asia Minor probably wondered how God could allow such persecution of them and John was encouraging them to stay firm to thier calling in the face of this terrible oppression. The message I take away from Revelation is that Jesus Christ is victorious and his faithful will also share in that glory come what may.

Does this make me a heretic in your view? I certainly don't think you are one for believing in a literal millenial kingdom. The only reason I put it that way is because I've met some Xians who once they learn about my views think I can't be much of a Xian because of them But I assure you my faith is strong, and I really do believe this is the truth about the same bible you and I are reading.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

ok, then bugs. i can understand where you're coming from because i've been there. but there is so much more. revelation wasn't written to "a" church, but to seven churches. i'm sure you know the spiritual significance of seven. (you have studied bible numerics?) did you note that five of the seven had some fault against them? can you figure out what it was about the two that set them apart? they know and teach who and what the synagogue of satan is and how they profess to be of our brother judah, but are not. they are imposters. do you get what i'm saying here?
i really hope so, and i hope your faith is truly strong because they will soon enough not only call you heretic, but possibly put you in prison or, god forbid, an ASYLUM.

Shoot, I didn't mean to say that it was written to *one* church, my bad. Yes, the seven churches are to whom the words are addressed. I'm afraid I'm not sure of all the significance you are clearly pointing to. Any chance you have some links you can help me out with or get me up to speed on as it relates to your view of this book? If you prefer taking it to email that would be totally cool with me as well.

And if indeed the time is near for us to go through a time of trial, I can only say that I have always wondered whether that would happen in my lifetime and have done my best to prepare. I look forward to more info if you have it.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Bugs:

quote:

---

The wandering off topic is actually a requirement around here and it has worked this way for as long as I've been a member.

---

so, it's been happening ever since YOU joined, hey?

I'm not so sure whether or not this is a coincidence.


reitsma

Is this a good time for me to break out in an evil laugh? Muhahahahahahaha

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Bugs, I base some of my findings on this

quote:

---

It is generally accepted by scholars that both Matthew and Luke drew upon the Gospel of Mark. In addition, they also had one other common source, which has since been lost. This source focused on the teachings of Jesus. It is referred to the "Q Source," a name stemming from the German word for source, Quelle. Both Matthew and Luke also have unique source material. Because of the many similarities between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, they are referred to as the synoptic gospels. The word synoptic means "to see together." The Gospel of John contains much unique narrative and dialogue and is considered to be rather different in its emphasis from the first three gospels.

Among the early Church fathers, there was controversy about the authorship of Hebrews, since it is the only anonymous epistle. Tertullian suggested that the author was Barnabas, but the prevailing view was that it was written by Paul and translated by Luke. Origen in the midst of this controversy proclaimed that "God only knows" who the author really was.

---

from this New Testament

Q Source? I would like to have that. Who wrote it? I am not doubting that which was wrote is wrong, or somehow false in that respect in regards to the gospels - I am doubting the source that most was written from here. There is no way to prove its accuracy, or truth. In fact, unless it is buried somewhere in the Vatican (which wouldn't surprise me), or discovered sometime in the future, we may never have a chance to examine this document. This then throws the Gospels into question, Bugs (for me, anyway). The reason is because I (and no-one else, it seems) cannot then see this original Source, and see what might have been left out! The information may be accurate, but even with accurate information, one can tell untruths, by leaving vital information out. Remember, I used to work in the information gathering business, I know how such things work.

These are the current competing views on the Gospels, that I could find, Bugs. Synoptic Theories & Hypotheses. I find them to be truly fascinating...just fascinating.

Here is an interesting in-depth look into truth, fallibility, etc concerning the Bible IRRANCY:
Is the Bible free of error? All points of view.

But my main point was how the New Testaments message is perceived among the different Christian Faiths. Also, there seems to be great disagreement in the case of Judas. None doubt that Judas existed - but as to what Judas was, what he did, what role he played, etc, there seems to be conflict as to these.

Strange is, that every "source" that comes from someone that Believes in the Bible, doesn't even mention the "Q Source". They don't mention it! Instead, they go on about how accurate the New Testament is. The only real sources mentioning the "Q Source" (that I could find) are non-beliving, or impartial views, sad to say.

You didn't mention it either. Neither did Jade. In fact, with all the different debates, discussions, etc that we have had here at the Asylum, I have never seen it mentioned once! I find that strange.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

(Edited by WebShaman on 06-07-2004 11:43)

(Edited by WebShaman on 06-07-2004 11:47)

Just thought I'd pop in and say that this is one loooong thread you guys have here. Does anyone know what the record is?

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | Hooray for linguistic idiots and yak milk!

Heh. It is sort of long, isn't it? Reminds me almost of the Air Asylum threads *sigh*

I don't know what the record for longest thread is *shrugs*

On with the thread!

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

It's much easier to hav elong threads now that we have them paginated.

If you add up the multiple threads from the past when they had to be closed and "round 2" started, I'm sure we're nowhere near the record.

As for the 1,000 year kingdom deal.....

uh..........

(^that's the extent of my contribution on the subject )

DL-44, that's precisely the reaction I give when people start discussing the basketball championship games. The differences of view about the end times is most certainly a topic deserving of its own thread.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Not only is is a very long thread, but I think we've covered the topic from just about every conceivable angle!

(I actually like the thread to be on one page, I can tell where the latest reply is! Sometimes I get messed up with the individual pages. Perhaps its something I'll get used to in the future...)

I think that the main problem with the Q source is that it is, at best, hypothetical. And if it does actually exist (which is probable, but unprovable), it could have been either oral or written. If it is the latter, it may show up eventually. Considering the Dead Sea Scrolls were only recently discovered (1947), there are undoubtedly more little treasures yet to be uncovered in the deserts of the Middle East and Northern Africa. You may yet get your answers, WS. Maybe even in your lifetime.

Dragonlady

Incidently, have any of you read The Templar Revelations? It's one of several books dealing with the messiahship of Jesus. It claims, among other things, that not only did Jesus not die on the cross, but that he married Mary Magdalen, and had children, the direct descendants of which and their identities are being closely guarded by a secret society (offices in New York City) called the The Priory of Sion. This society was once part of the Templars, but suffered a schism in . . . 1400? Among the supposed Leaders of this organization were such persons as Leonardo Da Vinci, Sir Isaac Newton, and Jacques Cocteau. The DaVinci Code touches on this theory . . .

Dragonlady

Q source? Priory of Sion?

you guys are kidding, right?

Someone was reading Da Vinci Code and started taking what is written in there as fact.

The Q source is, however, not simply a hypothetical it has been mathematically tested and is accepted as fact by a huge number of biblical scolars. I am not even sure if there is anyone out there saying "there is no Q."

The Priory of Sion, while a fun idea, carries much less weight than the actual claim of Jesu dying on the cross. Everyone like a nice Conspiracy Theory and the Priory of Sion is just that. Here is a little link, I can't vouch for the source, if you want more reputable just do a little googling yourself Da Vinci Con

WS.

I just love that you are digging into biblical studies. This is all so interesting reading. And am learning so much stuff. Thanks everybody.

Speaking of the book of Revelation. From what I have studied, it was written for all churches referring to past, present and the future. Its an unveiling for all to see. To me, its a very beautiiful book. Each church represents a sinfulness, but its really speaking of the evil that takes man away from God. Like the seven deadly sins. The number seven in bibilical teaching refers to fullness. The number seven is referred throughout the bible. I will get into what each chruch represents in my view if anybody wants to know. To me, when John is getting a glimpse of heaven, it is relating to the earhtly trials and tribulations of what happens everyday of the week, 24/7 and how God will reward us. To me its not a scary book of doom to scare people into belief. I don't believe that is God's aim.

WM, if you are referring to me as taking the DaVinci Code for fact, I don't. I am well aware that it is fiction. However, the Templar Revelations is interesting reading, and does back up its hypotheses pretty effectively. I think if you read it with an open mind you'd be surprised. However, there are portions of the book where it falls over itself trying not to contradict its own conclusions, but it is interesting just the same.

But, as I have said before, I am not a Christian, although I find the subject of the messiahship of Jesus very compelling. As a result I also am a little more open minded than some of you, but I do admire your convictions! I remember I felt that way, once upon a time.

Dragonlady

She says to the staunch atheist.

Sorry, WarMage. You had me fooled! I'm only a heretic!

Dragonlady

Outcydr,

quote:

---

Q source? Priory of Sion?

you guys are kidding, right?

---

Do you mean that you do not believe that there was/is a Q Source? If so, why? Could you please explain your reasons a bit more clearly? If you actually checked the sources I used in my post, you will see that they are very well credited. All circumstantial and research evidence points to the existence of a "Q Source". So no, I was not kidding, and neither is anyone else who studies/has studied the New Testament and mentions a "Q Source".

I must confess, that I know nothing about the Priory of Sion.

@ Jade

quote:

---

I just love that you are digging into biblical studies.

---

Ummm...what? You do know that I used to be a Christian, right? So no, I am not "digging" into biblical studies. I was merely supplying the information that Bugs was asking for (answering his query). If you have had a chance to actually examine the Official Debate on Does God exist? that we had here, you would also know more about where I stand, and why.

I spend literally years after the first Gulf War tearing myself apart, and asking critical questions, questions that I hadn't dared ask before.
After being brutally honest with myself (and coming to terms with what I had done, and who I was), it was at that time, that I started actually researching my Beliefs. Since I was in College at the time, I had good access to information, and the luxury of time to do this.

My findings and conclusions led me to refute my Belief, and I am no longer a Christian. Instead, I have spend more time, researching and dwelving into my ancestor's Beliefs.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

(Edited by WebShaman on 06-08-2004 09:18)

quote:

---

She says to the staunch atheist.

---

Hehe....she says to the room full of staunch atheists

^Lol!!

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

Luke 1:1- 2
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

No, i don't believe there is any one particular "lost" Q document.

http://www.ntgateway.com/Q/index.htm

quote:

---

In summary: Q remains popular because the alternatives are either unfamiliar (Farrer), unacceptable (Griesbach) or unpalatable (Goulder). Q, on the other hand, keeps good company (Markan Priority) and enjoys the luxury of being taken for granted by a majority that has not, as Luke would have said, investigated the matter carefully from the beginning.

---

Already examined that, as part of my research, before you posted it. Unfortunately for the Author, the "Q Source" is required to meet certain requirements for types of verification, to prove that the New Testament is indeed factual. So, if you indeed do do away with the "Q Source", then you open that can of worms - that the New Testament may not be factual. This is discussed here Synoptic Theories & Hypotheses

You sure you want to go there?

Though the Author does have a good point to make "investigate the matter carefully from the beginning." Anyone serious about factual truth does such. Unfortunately, the Author falls short of disproving that the "Q Source" existed or not. As such, this is not helpful then in actually establishing the origins of the New Testament. Also, it is not certain if the "Q Source" was a document (could have been many) or oral tradition, word of mouth. We do know, that there had to be a way, to translate Jesus' sayings from the Aramaic to Greek, however. How this was accomplished, is not currently known. One would tend to think that it may have first have been recorded in Aramaic, and then translated to Greek. It is very hard to credit that it was translated from the verbal Aramaic to Greek in the head of the person(s) writing without a transcript first in Aramaic. I think Master Suho is an expert in the way of translations - he could probably say more here.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

I have never heard of this "q source", but it seems from what research I've been able to do so far to be causing a very inordinate amount of controversy.

If I am understanding things correctly, all the theory says is that there is a source unknown to us that was used by both matthew and luke....?

I can't understand how such a thing could cause controversy of any kind....

quote:

---

You sure you want to go there?

---

nope

quote:

---

. . .it is not certain. . .

---

a bit like proving God exists, eh?

quote:

---

If I am understanding things correctly, all the theory says is that there is a source unknown to us that was used by both matthew and luke....?

I can't understand how such a thing could cause controversy of any kind

---

The "Q Source" is this unknown source that may have influenced both Matthew and Luke. There are certain descrepancies in their versions that seem to be coming from a third, unknown source. Many believe, that this source is wither a written or oral recording of the sayings of Jesus (because he personally didn't seem to leave anything written that we know of).

The problems start arising, in that
a) If there is no "Q Source", then the Gospel versions are different from one another. This makes them fallable.
b) If there is a "Q Source", then without knowing of what it consists of, we cannot be certain of what might have been left out of the New Testament. This also makes the Gospel fallable.

Discovery of the "Q Source" would of course clear up this issue.

Thus, examining this core of the Christian Faith is what makes it controversal. It strikes at the heart of what makes the New Testament what it is believed to be. To propose, and suggest such (and question such), as the "Q Source" theory does, has resulted in real controversy among the Faithful.

For those outside of the Faith, there is mostly just surprise at the controversy. This is mostly because for those who do not believe, there is no emotional attachment to the New Testament.

@ outcydr -

quote:

---

a bit like proving God exists, eh?

---

Well, yes, in a fashion. However, we are talking about two different things here, I think. I believe it is within the realm of possibility to actually establish the authenticity and accuracy of the New Testament. Proving God exists (or not) is really something else.

We do know, that the New testament was and has been changed. This we know. Certain parts left out, certain parts added, according to certain beliefs. The question of the "Q Source", however, strikes right at the heart of the New Testament - the Gospels.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

I'd like to examine this controversy a bit. Let's assume this Q source exist[s|ed]. The controversy than becomes, as WS adequately pointed out, a matter of 'what was left out?'

That's the big controversy?
How, in the eyes of Christians, is that any different than the compilation of the entire canon?

On no less than 5 seperate occassions, people -- church officials -- met to include or disclude (or edit!) commonly discussed/studied sets of writtings from the official, church sponsored "Word of God".

So, outcydr specifically, but anybody really, I ask, "What's the big deal?"
Why is Q any different than Shepherd of Hermas, Letter of Barnabas, Teaching of Twelve, Gospel of the Hebrews, Revelation of Peter, Acts of Peter or any of the other writings which were once considered important but are not distributed in the Bible today?

(Edited by mobrul on 06-09-2004 15:15)

Because it affects the Gospels, which are supposed to be the direct witnessing of Jesus through the Apostles. That's like the Big Bang effecting Genesis in the Bible, sort of. If it was proven that the Big Bang really did create the Universe, and happened through a natural process, this would put Genesis in doubt.

The same with the "Q Source" in regards to the New Testament.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

yeah but.....

Anyway you look at it, the gospels are quite fallable. Many reasons for this have already been discussed in this thread, if i recall correctly.

As mobrul said, and as I've said many times in the past, there are countless writings that at various times have been held in various lights by the church, and have been added, removed, changed, etc...

That in and of itself leaves everything so absurdly untrustworthy that something like this 'q source' seems insiginificant.

It affects the gospels? What about the gospels that aren't in the bible?

Either way you look at it, something out there effected the gospels - call it what you will.

Also, in terms of the big bang vs. genesis - I don't think it be problematic. Unless you are a die hard fundamentalist who takes everything absolutely literal, it's easy enough to work the big bang into the story of god creating the universe.

(Edited by DL-44 on 06-09-2004 17:46)

quote:

---

Anyway you look at it, the gospels are quite fallable. Many reasons for this have already been discussed in this thread, if i recall correctly.

As mobrul said, and as I've said many times in the past, there are countless writings that at various times have been held in various lights by the church, and have been added, removed, changed, etc...

That in and of itself leaves everything so absurdly untrustworthy that something like this 'q source' seems insiginificant.

It affects the gospels? What about the gospels that aren't in the bible?

Either way you look at it, something out there effected the gospels - call it what you will.

---

DL, I agree.

quote:

---

Also, in terms of the big bang vs. genesis - I don't think it be problematic. Unless you are a die hard fundamentalist who takes everything absolutely literal, it's easy enough to work the big bang into the story of god creating the universe.

---

You will notice I said was caused naturally. Such as Guthrie's Grand Guess was proved, for example. That would preclude the "Hand of God" in play, thus it would affect Genesis.

Of course, one could believe in God without the Bible or the New Testament, for that matter.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

yeah, but proving it happened "naturally" is akin to prove that god did it.

You can come up with any scientific explanation possible, and it may well be the real deal, but it in no way precludes the hand of god.

That's the trouble with god. No matter what happens, you can say god did it. No matter how implausible it sound, you can always say "god's will is beyond our understanding".

It's an easy out, but one that cannot be "proven" wrong in most cases.

[First let me note that I understand, WS, you're presenting the side of the argument you would not normally take...
Having said that, let's continue.]

You say it matters more that there could be something missing from the Q source (the gospel, an eyewitness to the events in question, etc), than something else in the Bible.

There are two issues here:
1) If the Q author (we'll call him/her Qa) was not an eyewitness, then that brings into question the credibility of the gospels Mathew and Luke as eyewitness accounts. (because, at that point, they would be reporting heresay)

2) It is more important to have 'ALL' the information for the Jesus story than other Biblical stories.

Let's take #1. Nobody ever said Qa was NOT an eyewitness. For all we know, Qa was Jesus himself. Q could have been a compilation of notebooks kept by the 12 apostles, Mary, and the rest of the clan as they traveled. Qa could have been Luke, Mathew, or even both of them. Qa could have been anybody, and no part of the Q theory (as I understand it) insists Qa wasn't among the followers.

On objection #1...I see no objection. If Q turned out to be Jesus' diary, would there be objections?
"We can no longer believe Luke...he plagerized from Jesus' speech notebook!"
I find it hard to believe any right-minded Christian would ever utter such a thing.

Now, on to #2.
The Bible is what it is because it is believed to be 100% the word of god. While I don't think if is necessary to believe the Bible, literally, in its entirety, to be a Christian, I do think you have to believe the general directions of EVERY SINGLE Biblical story for significance.

Jesus is said to be the Son of God. He was neither the first nor the last to make such a claim. (Thinking) Christians believe what they do not simply because he said so, but because they believe:
a) he fulfilled a number of prophesies (from God!)
b) he fulfilled a pattern of covenants (with God!)
c) he fulfilled Jewish law and tradition (from God!) of death for sin

Take out any of those pieces, and Jesus was just a guy who said he was god to the wrong people...like I said, not the first, and not the last.

Every single story of the Old Testament points to one of those three things, and many point to more than one. They are in the Bible to provide meaning to the Gospels -- to provide a base on which the gospel story is built. Without them, the gospels are meaningless.

So...
I can not possibly imagine a thinking Christian saying any of the Old Testament stories are meaningless, or even secondary, to the gospel.

quote:

---

[It] is like a man building a house, who dug and went deep, and laid a foundation on the rock. When a flood arose, the stream broke against that house, and could not shake it, because it was founded on the rock. But he who hears, and doesn?t do, is like a man who built a house on the earth without a foundation, against which the stream broke, and immediately it fell, and the ruin of that house was great.

---

If this problem with Q and the gospels exists, it must also exist for every other story, every other book...the entire religion then stands on shaky ground.

imho
i think the q source has grown from honest questions as to the origins of the gospels into something else. it has gone from hypothesis to the reconstructed gospel of q. some would insist it is more likely the gospel of thomas. and the list goes on. there are probably a lot of old documents and letters concerning the life and sayings of christ we will never know of.

Jhn 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.


Ecc 12:12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books [there is] no end; . . .

and so it goes


steering back toward the original topic a bit:
i just found this site so i'm still perusing it myself
it might be a bit dated, and a lot to read if you're not really interested, but it seems to cover a lot of what i believe (or NOT as if you cared)
of course, i reserve the right to change my opinion at any moment

and yes, i just might be as crazy as you

It's funny, but between the last time and this one, I met many people who were religious in life - they had a hard time adjusting to the next plane. They kept thinking it was some sort of a test of their faith, as though their god was showing them a false after-life to guage their reaction (e.g- "I knew there was no god").

The ones who adjust most rapidly are those who were fairly agnostic - a view shared by most in that other place. We are unaware of anything more than you are in this plane; when we move on (possibly up), we are as out of touch with those in the next world as those in this one with us.

Maybe it is all about layers. As one is reunited with their spirit in the next world, perhaps each spirit is reunited with their host in the next again, and so on until their is only one great consciousness (that one might consider 'god' in that it is the source of all spirits).

Then again, maybe there is only that one plane and this, and when one of us finally passes beyond that plane, there is nothing more.

Don't get the hump - it is an asylum, after all!


___________________________________________

I didn't believe in reincarnation the last time, either...
___________________________________________

Seriously though - if everyone goes to heaven or hell, wouldn't one or the other be a little crowded by now? Perhaps, when the last parking space in hell is reserved, that is when Armageddon will begin?

On the other hand - what if this is hell? The London Underground (not a rebel movement) seems like a fitting torture, and work is often hellish.

(Edited by White Hawk on 06-10-2004 02:00)

quote:

---

of course, i reserve the right to change my opinion at any moment

and yes, i just might be as crazy as you

---

Good - so we're on the same page at least

Now, as far as the "maybe this is hell" - I am sure it was in jest, at least partly, but I *really* hate that argument.
I think mainly I hate it because the people I most often hear saying it are the people who have practically nothing to complain about, nothing to equate their lives to any form of hell. The ones who can make that connection are usually beyond such things.

That doesn;t reflect on you, WH - just a pet peeve of mine based on people I see and hear too often.

No problem. I'm pretty damned hard to offend, but realise I may offend others easily.

Yes, the "is this hell" question was in jest, and it isn't the most original thought I've ever had - though it wasn't intended as an argument of any kind.

Here's an argument:

I think that science is all inclusive in that it attempts to explain the 'how' of things while disregarding the 'why' of them. In this capacity, it neither promotes nor discourages a belief in God and Creation.

Christianity, on the other hand, couldn't possibly accept the claims of science! If the bible is to be believed, for instance, then God has made some serious revisions to the way he constructed the world since science started to catch up wth him:

God's flat earth (or the deceipt of Satan?):

quote:

---

Again the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.
(Matthew 4:8)

---

You'll want to rust-proof that pond (and pi equals three-point-zero-zero?):

quote:

---

He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim ... It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.
(1 Kings 7:23)

---

Should have got planning permission for this (immovable Earth?):

quote:

---

He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.
(Psalms 104:5)

---

In view of such pearls of biblical wisdom, intelligent theological discussion seems a bit of an oxymoron.

But then, being a scientific person, I wouldn't know one edge of the Earth from another...

______________________

Onwards & Upwards..?
______________________

Bugs is going to have a field day with that post...hehe. I can hardly wait to see his reply...be prepared for a good whacking, White Hawk. In specific

quote:

---

Christianity, on the other hand, couldn't possibly accept the claims of science!

---

If there is any Christian that I know, who hasn't embraced science like Bugs, then I don't know who it is. But you are new here...I guess a few sound spankings are in order...hehe. I've tusseled with Bugs quite a few times, using science to debate against his beliefs. Believe me, I never resoundingly won. At best, it was a draw.

Needless to say, even I disagree with that statement. I believe that someone can be a follower of science, and the scientific method, and still believe in God (and be a Christian). Albert Einstein is a great example of this, I think.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

*debates on whether to say anything or wait on bugs...realizes it's time to go home...figures he'll check this a bit later...*


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Stephen Hawking is another. I know that he believes in God, but I don't know if he is a Christian. In fact, there are many scientists who believe that the universe is too orderly to have been accidental. And even if you believe in the "big bang" theory (which I do), in the beginning there was a void. Something had to have blown up. Where did it come from? But then, I guess I probably shouldn't even be discussing this. I'm terribly right-brained.

Besides, this whole argument is moot. Didn't you see the Sun this week at your local friendly grocer's? We only have a hundred days 'til Armageddon (Sorry, since I really didn't read the article, I'm not sure if that is dated from the day the reporter got the story, or the day it hit the streets. It could make a several day difference!) So White Hawk, you're going to look pretty silly when the world ends in three months!

Dragonlady

Only 100 days?!? Oh, well... at least Armageddon happens after my birthday!

At any rate, I just wanted to add my thoughts on the Q source...

The discussion here in this thread has been my first exposure to the concept of Q (except for John DeLancie anyway...) and I find it fascinating. What an incredible find it would be should it truly be found to exist! I think it would be an exceptionally important piece of a complex puzzle. Here is the reason why I believe it would be so important: The basis of Christianity is the divinity of Jesus. (Yes, I know there is more to it than that...) but, without the belief that Jesus was divine, we simply have another Jewish prophet and history would have maybe taken a different turn.

I think at that time there was a serious desire for the delivery of the foretold Messiah. As the Bible currently stands, I don't find it convincing enough to support the divinity of Jesus. The reason is this: the canonization was an act of men, who picked and chose through who knows how many "sacred" documents to determine what they felt was relevant 300 years after the events that founded their religion. They could choose which documents would most conveniently support this Savior they stake their souls on. It's almost in a way like looking at Nostradamus' prophesies - we can read them now, and find many that would fit past events. Does this mean that he really foretold that specific event? We can really never know - it has to be taken on faith that the person interpreting that prophecy hundreds of years later actually knows what he is talking about - and is maybe not pushing his own agenda.

The men who canonized the bible had the power to shape history - to shape the society they lived in to be what they believed it should be.

quote:

---

Mobrul-If this problem with Q and the gospels exists, it must also exist for every other story, every other book...the entire religion then stands on shaky ground

---

This is very much what I believe. There have been so many hands in the shaping of the book called the Bible that no one can really say with certainty that what exists now is the Word of God. You first have Oral tradition: Rather a lot like playing the game "telephone". With the way language evolves and words take on new meaning through time, even should a story be told verbatim - a thousand years down the line, the subtleties (sp?) would be lost. Then you have the writing: how much of the "Word of God" has been lost through decomposition, destruction and the like? What has been misinterpreted, misunderstood and just plain altered through time? A Q source could clear up a lot of things....

that took a rather round about way of getting to why I thought it was important...

But then again, I have to be honest with myself and with you in saying that even should the Q source substantiate the Gospels as they currently exist - I don't think I'd be changing my religion...

Nice post, Moon Dancer.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

Okay WebShaman, I admit that I made the argument for the sake of being a little contraversial, and it isn't the strongest argument I could have made. I just thought it interesting to note that the Bible contradicts currently understood scientific facts (hence, the carefully chosen quotations). Perhaps the whole design of the Earth was reviewed?

Downloading Earth patch v2.0.1...

It really was just an attempt to throw another spin on the whole argument over whether or not Darwinian and Creationist theories could co-exist.

Bugs, you have the floor, with my pleasure!

Ok, ok. I can't keep up with this place anymore! The discussions are really moving along.

Anyway this is for you, White Hawk. I was in the middle of replying when I read your most recent post. I can see you were looking for a few buttons to press but I'll continue in the vein I had begun.

It would seem you're point comes down to this from you

quote:

---

In view of such pearls of biblical wisdom, intelligent theological discussion seems a bit of an oxymoron.

---

Like I mentioned in the other thread, An eye for an eye, I don't agree with reading the bible with a complete ignorance of its cultural, historical, and theological context. I know that is common with many people but I find it strange coming from someone who claims to be a scientist. Now I know that you are probably used to smacking down Christian fundies and having a good laugh. Well, it may surprise you to know that I do my fair share of smacking them down to, but I cry that I feel the need to do so since we share a common faith.

You are aware that there are a great number of very competent scientists who are also theists, right? Put simply, they do not see any problem embracing religion *and* science. I have stated several times here before that some of the great scientists of our western culture were religious people. I'm going to quote from a section of the formal debate we did a while back on the existence of God:

quote:

---

To use the words in the question, ?my personal dogma? is based in Christianity. I understand that it is a foregone conclusion to many that my faith is only concerned with propagating ignorance and preventing the search for truth, but I must strongly disagree with that. While it is certainly true that the history of the Christian faith has been tainted by misguided brethren, it does not change the fact that the Christian faith is founded upon the love of truth and using God?s gift of intellect to its fullest capacity. I am trained in a field of science and so looking back to the contributions fellow theists have made to science demonstrates that there need not be any enmity between science and faith. I will allow the following quotations speak for themselves in this regard.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."
--Galileo Galilei

"I give you thanks, Creator and God, that you have given me this joy in thy creation, and I rejoice in the works of your hands. See I have now completed the work to which I was called. In it I have used all the talents you have lent to my spirit."
--Johann Kepler

"The universe has been wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator"
--Copernicus

"I do not approve either the theology or the science of those who are prompt to invoke the supernatural to cover our ignorance of natural causes."
--Asa Gray (Harvard biologist)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So I feel entirely comfortable basing my research on a belief system shared by such esteemed individuals who found no problem with pursuing truth with vigor. I would hope all of us here would expect nothing less.

---

Now consider that I only focused on western science since its rise to prominance but what about the high culture of the Arabs around the 7th century? You know the Muslims who were far more advanced in mathematics and related sciences while many Europeans were still arguing over who had larger piles of filth (yes that is a blatant allusion to Monty Python's Holy Grail ). The Muslim world has been intensely religious since its founding and since scientific learning flourished under those conditions should leave no one in doubt there is no problem with embracing both.

I will explain that I do not believe God revealed to the Hebrews who lived under the Old Covenant the details of the physical universe. I believe He revealed profound and eternal theological truths to them and that they were the stewards of those truths for a few thousand years. I believe they wrote and spoke of these truths in the context of their own culture and understanding of the world.

Galileo really put it best in the quote I show above. The bible is not a scientific treatise on the creation of the universe, it is a road map to our reconciliation to the Creator. The physical world is what it is and is here for us to study and learn about its functions. And consider just for a moment what the would actually have to contain for it to describe things to you, White Hawk, in a way that you could understand.

It would have to be written in a context and cultural frame of mind that you could consume. It would have to dumb down the reality of reality for you (that was not a slam). Assuming we're still here 10,000 years from now, can you imagine how advanced our understanding might become of the universe? Do you really believe you could take in what will be known then? Now consider how primitive and silly the people living then will consider the scientific writings of our day. If they are fair minded, they will read what we say now in its historical context to keep from laughing, right? We should afford the people who lived 4,000 years ago the same courtesy as far as I'm concerned.

I need to add that I agree very much with this:

quote:

---

I think that science is all inclusive in that it attempts to explain the 'how' of things while disregarding the 'why' of them. In this capacity, it neither promotes nor discourages a belief in God and Creation.

---

I have said as much many times before. Religion deals with the why which is why it is so important.

That was probably a bit long winded but it was fun Now we need to get back to Q.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 06-11-2004 10:38)

I've been taking a closer look at those quotes from the OT. What was your point about the 1 Kings 7:23 reference? What does it have to do with the creation of the world? It's dealing with the construction of the Temple built by Solomon.

Now about the earth not being moved. This goes back to what I was talking about how all the cultures of southwestern asia understood the physical world. It was believed that the earth rested on an immense subterranean ocean. It was also believed that the heavens were fixed above the earth like a large inverted bowl. If you compare the creation stories of the Assyrians and Babylonians with that of Genesis, you will see this as common view of the physical world.

I hope that helps put some of this poking fun at the OT to rest.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

So, what you are saying, Bugs, is that this particular story is not true?

I can accept that.

I guess part of the problem for me comes down to this seemingly arbitrary distinction between what should be, and what should not be, taken literally in the bible.

To pick and choose "this is parable, this is truth" is obviously a big part of the problems between different schisms and sects of christianity.

I certainly agree that context is extremely important, and that is a big cause of problems on both sides of the fence. But context is also what leads me to hold the stories of Jesus so suspect.

I hardly think that scholars both secular and religious who dedicate their careers to studying the scriptural texts would characterize their findings as arbitrary, DL. There is a lot of work that goes into critically analyzing the scriptures and their historical merits.

But just earlier you did witness a major difference in how outcydr and myself view the Revelation of John. But I don't find this anymore unusual than the disagreements and squabbles we find in any field for scientific research. I think it is quite normal and healthy and it helps some of us to dig deeper into finding the original intent of the biblical authors.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

WH, i think you're taking the word "sea" in its english meaning and not what its actually referring to. from easton's bible dictionary:

quote:

---

Sea, The molten

the great laver made by Solomon for the use of the priests in the temple, described in 1 Kings 7:23-26; 2Chr 4:2-5. It stood in the south-eastern corner of the inner court. It was 5 cubits high, 10 in diameter from brim to brim, and 30 in circumference. It was placed on the backs of twelve oxen, standing with their faces outward. It was capable of containing two or three thousand baths of water (Compare 2 Chronicles 4:5), which was originally supplied by the Gibeonites, but was afterwards brought by a conduit from the pools of Bethlehem. It was made of "brass" (copper), which Solomon had taken from the captured cities of Hadarezer, the king of Zobah (1 Chronicles 18:8). Ahaz afterwards removed this laver from the oxen, and placed it on a stone pavement (2 Kings 16:17). It was destroyed by the Chaldeans (25:13).

---

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Fair enough - scratch one quote.

Ten cubits across still isn't 30 cubits around, however, but I doubt this makes a compelling argument. Perhaps Solomon's building firm had no way of measuring the completed project, and they undoubtedly had no idea of the value of Pi in the planning stages either.

No matter...

WH - depends on whose cubits they're using to measure which depth! (cubits being the length of a person's arm from elbow to wrist... )


While I agree that there is a great deal of merit in biblical studies, and also a great deal of truth in the historical basis for the Bible's content, you would be hard pressed to convince me that the Bible can be taken entirely as a literal historical document.

Archaeologists have managed to unearth a great deal of evidence that can be (and has been) interpreted as "proving" the Bible - but they have not turned up anything that could be considered "conclusive" evidence that the Bible is indeed, factual. I think I see where DL's coming from here.

Whether it's actually arbitrary or only seemingly arbitrary, it's still difficult for the average person to make this determination on their own. Much of that comes from your own individual faith. Bugs, you believe in Jesus' divinity. Therefore, you are more inclined to believe that the stories recounted in the Bible are, indeed, historically accurate (to some extent). DL, on the other hand, is skeptical of the whole basis of your faith from the get go (meaning Jesus' divinity) and so is less inclined to believe the Bible to be historically accurate without some hard and fast proof. (Hope I've read everyone aright... I might be making it more simplistic than it should be... what with the variations in belief and all... apologies if I've taken someone wrong - feel free to make corrections!)

quote:

---

Bugs, you believe in Jesus' divinity.

---

But I didn't just pull that out of my anus.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Well, no. Of course not. That wasn't the point at all.

Your faith in Jesus' divinity assists in your ability to believe that the contents of the Bible are true.

Whereas DL's skepticism of Jesus' divinity means he requires some substantial evidence if one is to convince him that the contents of the Bible are true.

Again, there is a definite historical basis for the contents of the Bible. The trick is attaching the written words to a physical place and moment in time. Making the first step, believing in the divinity of Jesus, just makes the rest of the leap easier.

I'm sure I'm oversimplifying the issue...

Actually, I think you've made me look at it all with a little more care. Thanks.

So, which particular set of beliefs is the right one?

Whichever one works for you!

No, that just is so wrong. You don't believe in something just because. You believe in things that have a higher chance of actually being true. bodhi23, I think you're putting the cart before the horse on this. You, WH, and everyone else should pick beliefs that are more likely true than those that are not. I'm very sorry if I'm misreading your point here, please correct me if I am.

I'm sorry for pulling out all these quotations lately but I can't help but see relevance:

quote:

---

It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

--Carl Sagan

---

quote:

---

The well-meaning contention that all ideas have equal merit seems to me little different from the disastrous contention that no ideas have any merit.

--Carl Sagan

---

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

No, that was the point. ;)

Yes, it wasn't.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

quote:

---

Fair enough - scratch one quote.

---

hehee! i'm certain that if people were'nt so biased and did a little digging (pun) we could all have a pretty good backcratching.

quote:

---

No, that just is so wrong. You don't believe in something just because. You believe in things that have a higher chance of actually being true.

---

says: "duh!?" at bugs again.

quote:

---

I'm sure I'm oversimplifying the issue...

---

that's what's so stupefyingly beautiful about it.

ed/ only ribbing you bugs as in DNA curve

(Edited by outcydr on 06-16-2004 01:49)

When determining wrong from left, it is definitely maybe.

Or, to put it another way - it's all bollocks anyway, until it isn't.

I like to beat at dead horses, and reawaken old discussions that were done while I was away, so if I say anything that has already been clarified, please stop me.

quote:

---

bodhi23 said:

you would be hard pressed to convince me that the Bible can be taken entirely as
a literal historical document.

---

It is true. The bible is an entirely literal documentation. It explains how the universe was created (the hows are for you Sangreal), where the first people came from, what happened to them, and the Jews and so on until Jesus and a little afterwards. You see, this is a hard subject for most Christians, because as soon as you say that the entire Bible isn't true, you have just opened the door to total annihilation of what the Bible says, if you try to reintrepret just one part of the bible, then you say that others, including Jesus's birth, death, and resurrection. For instance:

-How do you know that Jesus rose from the dead? How do you know that He is the Savior?
-Well, it says back in Matthew...
-Oh, you are quoting that book? Well, what about the six days?
-Well, you don't need to believe in that.
-Oh, I see, so you want me to believe in this part, but not in this? That's real consistant isn't? What about the virgin birth?
-Well, it says back in Luke..
-Oh! You're quoting that book again! (turns and walks away)

You see my point? You can't say that one part of the Bible is wrong, and expect people to believe in another part of it. It opens the door to unbelief and the loosing of souls.

And about the dinosaur adventure park, I didn't really get to read all of it for lack of time, but if it says what I think it says and that dinosaurs lived along side humans back during Adam and Eve's time, I would agree with that. Anyways, there isn't any proof that the dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago. Just conjectures. Dinos don't come out of the ground with little tags on them that say "hello, I am 65 million years old", no. They are in the present, and we try to figure out what happened in the past to see what brought them there. (and if any of you recognize these arguments, it is because there is a man called Ken Ham who is one of the leading people with Christian answers. He has a web site called answersingenesis.org if anyone would like to see his arguments about dinos.)

Do not rebuke a moker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

I like to beat at dead horses, and reawaken old discussions that were done while I was away, so if I say anything that has already been clarified, please stop me.

quote:

---

bodhi23 said:

you would be hard pressed to convince me that the Bible can be taken entirely as
a literal historical document.

---

It is true. The bible is an entirely literal documentation. It explains how the universe was created (the hows are for you Sangreal), where the first people came from, what happened to them, and the Jews and so on until Jesus and a little afterwards. You see, this is a hard subject for most Christians, because as soon as you say that the entire Bible isn't true, you have just opened the door to total annihilation of what the Bible says, if you try to reintrepret just one part of the bible, then you say that others, including Jesus's birth, death, and resurrection. For instance:

-How do you know that Jesus rose from the dead? How do you know that He is the Savior?
-Well, it says back in Matthew...
-Oh, you are quoting that book? Well, what about the six days?
-Well, you don't need to believe in that.
-Oh, I see, so you want me to believe in this part, but not in this? That's real consistant isn't? What about the virgin birth?
-Well, it says back in Luke..
-Oh! You're quoting that book again! (turns and walks away)

You see my point? You can't say that one part of the Bible is wrong, and expect people to believe in another part of it. It opens the door to unbelief and the loosing of souls.

And about the dinosaur adventure park, I didn't really get to read all of it for lack of time, but if it says what I think it says and that dinosaurs lived along side humans back during Adam and Eve's time, I would agree with that. Anyways, there isn't any proof that the dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago. Just conjectures. Dinos don't come out of the ground with little tags on them that say "hello, I am 65 million years old", no. They are in the present, and we try to figure out what happened in the past to see what brought them there. (and if any of you recognize these arguments, it is because there is a man called Ken Ham who is one of the leading people with Christian answers. He has a web site called answersingenesis.org if anyone would like to see his arguments about dinos.)

Do not rebuke a moker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

It is true. The bible is an entirely literal documentation.

---

Oh, ok - that clears it up. Thanks for the final word on that, I was beginning to doubt

quote:

---

You see my point? You can't say that one part of the Bible is wrong, and expect people to believe in another part of it. It opens the door to unbelief and the loosing of souls.

---

No. I don't see your point.
First of all, this assumes that the bible is one book. It is not. It is a very big collection of stories, all from very different time periods and sources. The romans took it upon themsleves to decide which ones would be included that would best fit their view of what Christianity should be.

To say that a person must believe that the entire bible is meant to be literal simply because not doing so leaves room for doubt is the absolute pinnacle of ignorance, and epitomizes the evils of religion, IMO.

Without room for doubt, your "faith" means absolutely nothing. In the same way that fear is necessary in order to produce courage, room for doubt is essential in order to call something faith.

quote:

---

Anyways, there isn't any proof that the dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago. Just conjectures

---